Aetl 1 PDF

Advancing Excellence in
Technological Literacy:
Student Assessment, Professional Development,
and Program Standards
and Program Standards
Companion to—Standards for Technological Literacy:

Content for the Study of Technology
International Technology Education Association
and its Technology for All Americans Project
The International Technology Education Association and its Technology for All Americans Project developed
Advancing Excellence in Technological Literacy: Student Assessment, Professional Development, and Program
Standards through funding from the National Science Foundation under Grant No. ESI-0000897 and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration under Grant No. NCC5-519. Any opinions, findings, and conclu-
sions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect
the views of the National Science Foundation or the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Copyright© 2003 by the International Technology Education Association (ITEA). All rights reserved. Except as
permitted under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced or dis-
tributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written
permission of ITEA.
ISBN: 1-887101-03-9
Copies of this document are being distributed by the

1914 Association Drive, Suite 201
Reston, Virginia 20191-1539
Phone: (703) 860-2100
Fax: (703) 860-0353
Email: itea@iris.org
URL: www.iteawww.org
Contents
Preface ....................................................................................v
CHAPTER
1 Overview of Advancing Excellence in Technological Literacy ................1
Advancing Excellence in Technological Literacy: Student Assessment, Professional Development, and Program Standards
Principles and Related Definitions ................................................9
3 Student Assessment Standards ...................................................17
4 Professional Development Standards ...........................................39
5 Program Standards ...................................................................69
6 Achieving the Vision by Working Together ...................................97
APPENDIX
A History of Technology for All Americans Project ..........................108
B Acknowledgements .................................................................111
C Listing of STL Content Standards ..............................................120
D Listing of AETL Standards with Guidelines ..................................121
E Correlation Chart ...................................................................126
F References and Resources ........................................................132
G Glossary ...............................................................................135
H Index ...................................................................................143
Preface
Advancing Excellence in Technological Literacy: Student Assessment, Professional
Development, and Program Standards (AETL) is a companion document to Standards
for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology (STL). Specifically, it
presents standards and enabling guidelines for student assessment, professional devel-
opment of teachers, and the program infrastructure associated with the study of
technology in Grades K–12. AETL is a valuable resource to promote technological
literacy for all students.
AETL was developed by the International Technology Education Association’s
Technology for All Americans Project (ITEA-TfAAP) by way of generous support from
the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) from 2000–2003. Many people assisted with the development
and refinement of this document. Valuable input was provided by the ITEA-TfAAP
Advisory Group, the Standards Writing Team, the Standards Specialists, the ITEA
Board of Directors, and various focus groups. We would like to express our apprecia-
tion to NSF, NASA, and everyone involved in formulating this document (see
Appendix B).
AETL will be useful to all persons interested in seeing that students are technologically
literate as a result of formal education. We are optimistic about the contribution AETL
will make as a companion document to STL. Together, these publications provide
direction for the study of technology by delineating requirements for student assess-
ment, professional development of teacher candidates and existing teachers, and pro-
gram enhancement for the study of technology. The standards and guidelines in this
document will help professionals in education ensure that all students achieve techno-
logical literacy.
William E. Dugger, Jr., DTE Michael D. Wright, DTE

Director President
Technology for All Americans Project International Technology
Education Association
v
C H A P T E R
I
n 2000, the International Technology
Education Association (ITEA), through its
Technology for All Americans Project
(TfAAP), released Standards for Technological
1
Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology (STL)
(ITEA, 2000a). Funding for TfAAP was made
available through the National Science
Foundation (NSF) and the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA). STL provides
a significant foundational basis for the study of
technology in terms of content, but it is not
enough.
Advancing Excellence in Technological Literacy:
Student Assessment, Professional Development, and
Program Standards (AETL) is vital because STL
alone cannot make sufficient educational reform
in the study of technology. The two documents
should enjoy a symbiotic relationship: STL vali-
dates AETL, and clear alignment between AETL
and STL upholds the content standards. The pur-
pose of AETL is to facilitate technological literacy
for all students.
Rationale
We live in a technological world. Living in the
twenty-first century requires much more from
every individual than a basic ability to read, write,
and perform simple mathematics. Technology
affects virtually every aspect of our lives, from
enabling citizens to perform routine tasks to
requiring that they be able to make responsible,
informed decisions that affect individuals, our
society, and the environment.
Technology has enhanced human communica-
tions, comfort, safety, productivity, medical care,
and agriculture, among many other things.
However, the world is affected by both natural
problems and problems that arise from the
human modification of the natural world.
Examples of these include arctic warming, over-
population, escalating drought, elevated carbon
emissions, unregulated deforestation, and the
deterioration of coral reefs. On one hand, tech-
The purpose of nology has added to the degradation of the natural environment while on the other
AETL is to hand, technology is viewed by many as a panacea to solve these and future problems. It
facilitate
is imperative that we prepare a more technologically literate citizenry that is knowledge-
technological
literacy for all
able and able to comprehend such problems.
students. Citizens of today must have a basic understanding of how technology affects their world
and how they exist both within and around technology. The need for technological lit-
eracy is as fundamentally important to students as traditional core subject area knowl-
edge and abilities. Students need and deserve the opportunity to attain technological
literacy through the educational process.
Standards for Technological Literacy

Technological The vision of achieving technological literacy for all
literacy is the students is a fundamental principle of STL. The
ability to use, content standards (see Appendix C) and related
manage, assess,
benchmarks identify what all students need to know
and understand
technology.
and be able to do to progress toward technological
literacy. STL provides the content basis upon which

the study of technology may be built. It does not,
however, address such important topics as student
assessment, professional development, and program
enhancement.
Features of Advancing Excellence in

Technological Literacy
Technology is the AETL was created to provide the means for implementing STL in K–12 laboratory-
innovation, classrooms. Chapter 2 discusses principles and related definitions that are relevant to
change, or this document. AETL consists of three separate but interrelated sets of standards:
modification of
the natural Chapter 3: Student Assessment Standards
environment to Chapter 4: Professional Development Standards
satisfy perceived Chapter 5: Program Standards
human needs and
wants. The standards in AETL are based upon Table 1. The Number of Standards and
STL. To fully and effectively implement Guidelines in AETL
the content standards in STL, all of the AETL Sets of Standards Standards Guidelines
AETL standards presented in chapters 3, Student Assessment 5 23
4, and 5 must be met through the guide- Professional Development 7 36
lines. Users should read this document Program 5 24 30
comprehensively. (See Table 1 for the

number of standards and guidelines in AETL.)
AETL is designed to leave specific curricular decisions to teachers, schools, school dis-
tricts, and states/provinces/regions. STL and AETL describe the attributes of the effec-
tive study of technology that lead to technological literacy. Teachers, professional
2 CHAPTER ONE/Overview of AETL

development providers, and administrators should use STL and AETL as guides for
advancing technological literacy for all students.
AETL also includes:
Chapter 6: Achieving the Vision by Working Together
Appendices
Chapter 6 invites users to participate in the visionary basis of STL and AETL. The
appendices include a history of TfAAP (Appendix A), acknowledgements (Appendix B),
a listing of content standards for technological literacy (Appendix C), a listing of the
standards and guidelines from AETL (Appendix D), a correlation chart (Appendix E),
references and resources (Appendix F), a glossary (Appendix G), and an index
(Appendix H). The glossary terms are provided for clarity of intention within this
document.
Chapter 3: Student Assessment Standards

Student
Chapter 3 presents criteria for teachers to use in judging the quality of student assess- assessment refers
ment practices. The standards are applicable to those who educate students on any to the systematic,
aspect of technology. The five organiza- multi-step
tional topics for the student assessment process of
standards are: Table 2. Student Assessment Standards collecting
A-1. Assessment of student learning will be evidence on
Consistency with STL consistent with Standards for Technological student learning,
Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology
Intended Purpose (STL).
understanding,
Research-Based Assessment A-2. Assessment of student learning will be and abilities and
Principles explicitly matched to the intended purpose. using that
A-3. Assessment of student learning will be information to
Practical Contexts systematic and derived from research-based
assessment principles. inform
Data Collection A-4. Assessment of student learning will reflect instruction and
practical contexts consistent with the nature provide feedback
The student assessment standards define of technology.
A-5. Assessment of student learning will incorporate to the learner,
how assessment of technological literacy thereby
data collection for accountability, professional
should be designed and implemented, but development, and program enhancement. enhancing
the chapter does not lay out an assessment student learning.
tool—that is, it does not provide a test, quiz, or other handy instrument to be photo-
copied and used in the laboratory-classroom. This task is left—as it should be—to
individual teachers and others.
Users of the student assessment standards should recognize that student assessment
should be formative (ongoing) as well as summative (occurring at the end). Further, users
should recognize that the assessment process should be informative; that is, it should
inform students and teachers about progress toward technological literacy and provide
data on the effectiveness of instruction and programs. Teachers should use student
assessment data to improve classroom practices, plan curricula, develop self-directed
learners, report student progress, and research teaching practices. Student assessment
data provide information to policymakers on the success of the policies that have been
implemented.
CHAPTER ONE/Overview of AETL 3

The standards presented in chapter 3 (see Table 2) relate only to student assessment.
Evaluation of professional development is found in chapter 4, and evaluation of pro-
grams is found in chapter 5.
Chapter 4: Professional Development Standards

Professional Chapter 4 presents criteria for professional development providers (including teacher
development educators, supervisors, and administrators) to use in planning professional develop-
refers to a ment. The standards are applicable to those who prepare teachers on any aspect of tech-
continuous
nology. The seven organizational topics for the professional development standards are:
process of
lifelong learning Consistency with STL
and growth that Students as Learners
begins early in Table 3. Professional
Curricula and Programs
life, continues Development Standards
through the Instructional Strategies
PD-1. Professional development will provide teachers
undergraduate, Learning Environments with knowledge, abilities, and understanding
Continued Professional consistent with Standards for Technological
pre-service
Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology
experience, and Growth (STL).
extends through Pre-Service and In-Service PD-2. Professional development will provide teachers
the in-service with educational perspectives on students as
learners of technology.
years. Professional development providers PD-3. Professional development will prepare teachers to
who organize pre-service and in- design and evaluate technology curricula and
programs.
service education need to revise their PD-4. Professional development will prepare teachers to
curricula and teaching methodologies use instructional strategies that enhance
technology teaching, student learning, and
to align with STL and AETL. student assessment.
Technology is a continuously chang- PD-5. Professional development will prepare teachers to
design and manage learning environments that
ing field of study, and teachers must promote technological literacy.
be well prepared with the ability and PD-6. Professional development will prepare teachers to
be responsible for their own continued
motivation to stay informed and professional growth.
current on technological advances PD-7. Professional development providers will plan,
implement, and evaluate the pre-service and in-
throughout their careers. service education of teachers.
Consequently, becoming an effective
teacher is a continuous process of life-
long learning and growth that begins early in life, continues through the undergraduate,
pre-service experience, and extends through the in-service years. Users of this document
should focus on preparing teachers to continue to pursue professional development to
keep up with changing technologies and current research on how students learn.
Many states/provinces/regions are experiencing a
shortage of qualified, licensed technology teachers.
Therefore, a quality professional development pro-
gram based on the professional development standards
(see Table 3) is essential. Faculty members in every
teacher preparation program should address STL and
AETL to determine how the technological literacy of
teacher candidates can be enhanced. The necessity to
address issues of technological literacy is pertinent to
all programs that prepare teachers of every grade level, including K–5 elementary
teachers and teachers of science, mathematics, social studies, language arts, and other
content areas.
Chapter 5: Program Standards

Chapter 5 presents criteria for teachers and administrators (including supervisors) Program refers to
responsible for technology programs. The standards are applicable to those who orga- everything that
nize the learning of students on any aspect of technology. The five organizational topics affects student
learning,
for the program standards are:
including
Consistency with STL content,
Implementation Table 4. Program Standards professional
P-1. Technology program development will be development,
Evaluation consistent with Standards for Technological curricula,
Learning Environments Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology instruction,
(STL).
Management P-2. Technology program implementation will student
facilitate technological literacy for all assessment, and
Users of the program standards should students. the learning
recognize that thoughtful design and P-3. Technology program evaluation will ensure and
facilitate technological literacy for all environment,
implementation of programs for the study students. implemented
of technology are necessary to provide P-4. Technology program learning environments across grade
will facilitate technological literacy for all
comprehensive and coordinated experi- students.
levels.
ences for all students across grade levels P-5. Technology program management will be
provided by designated personnel at the
and disciplines. Coordinated experiences school, school district, and
result in effective learning; accordingly the state/provincial/regional levels.
program standards must be synchronized
with the content standards (STL) as well as with the student assessment and profes-
sional development standards in AETL. The study of technology should be develop-
mentally appropriate for every student, and it should be coordinated with other school
subjects, including science, mathematics, social studies, language arts, and other
content areas.
The program standards (see Table 4) call for extending programs for the study of tech-
nology beyond the domain of the school. Programs should, for example, involve par-
ents, the community, business and industry, school-to-work programs, and higher
education as well as professionals in engineering and other careers related to technology.
And finally, it is essential that adequate support for professional development be pro-
vided by administrators to ensure that teachers remain current with the evolving fields
of technology and educational research.

Sample Standard with Guidelines and Sample Vignette
The format for a sample standard with guidelines and a sample vignette can be found in
Figure 1.
Figure 1. Format of a Sample Standard with Guidelines and a Sample Vignette
S
A-4
T A
Practical
Contexts
N D A R D Standards (in large bold type) describe
Standard A-4: Assessment of student learning what should be done by the user. They are
will reflect practical contexts consistent with the
nature of technology. identified by prefixes such as A for
“R
“Research on esearch on learning finds that many students learn best in experiential
learning finds
that many
students learn
ways—by doing, rather than only seeing or hearing—and the study of
technology emphasizes and capitalizes on such active learning” (ITEA,
2000a, p. 5). Likewise, student assessment must reflect the active, dynamic nature of the
student assessment, PD for professional
best in
experiential
ways—by doing,
rather than only
study of technology and the manner in which people draw upon and exercise knowl-
edge and abilities acquired through experience. The practical contexts, which are consis-
tent with the essence of technology, are found in STL. Assessment should draw from a
development, and P for program.
seeing or variety of sources and involve a mixture of opportunities for students to demonstrate
hearing—and the their understanding, abilities, and critical-thinking skills.
study of
technology Teachers should use a variety of assessment tools and methods that require students to
emphasizes and use higher-order thinking skills. For example, holistic approaches to assessment take
capitalizes on forms other than traditional paper-and-pencil tests and can measure abilities that tradi-
such active
tional tests cannot. Holistic approaches may include demonstrated performance and
learning.” (ITEA,
student portfolios as a natural course of instruction and authentic assessment that
2000a, p. 5)
requires students to perform complex tasks representative of real life.
Correlates with Standard A-1: Student assessment that reflects practical contexts consistent with the
nature of technology should be consistent with STL.
Correlates with Standard PD-1: For student assessment to reflect practical contexts consistent with the
Narratives of Standards explain what is
nature of technology, teachers must attain knowledge, abilities, and understanding consistent with
STL.
nature of technology, teachers must be prepared to design and evaluate technology curricula and pro-
included in the standards and why they
are important.
grams that enable all students to attain technological literacy.
Correlates with Standard P-1: For student assessment to reflect practical contexts consistent with the
nature of technology, technology program development must be consistent with STL.
nature of technology, technology program evaluation must ensure and facilitate technological literacy
for all students.
Refer to STL Standards 1-20: STL identifies the knowledge and abilities students must develop in their
progression toward technological literacy in Grades K–12.
NOTE: Additional correlations and references at the guideline level can be found in Appendix E.
30 CHAPTER THREE/Student Assessment Standards
S T A N D A R D
Guidelines (in smaller bold type) state
A-4 Practical
Contexts
specific requirements or enablers that
Guidelines for meeting Standard A-4 require that
teachers consistently identify what needs to be done in order
A. Incorporate technological prob-
lem solving. Assessment provides
teachers with feedback about what stu-
may provide different information about
student understanding of content. to meet the standard.
Teachers help
dents actually know and can do. Assess- C. Facilitate critical thinking and
students
ment may require students to identify decision making. Assessment requires understand where
technological problems, needs, and measuring critical thinking and transfer they are and
opportunities within a cultural context; of knowledge to new situations. Teachers should be in their
write and construct problem statements; may use a pre- and post-test approach to development of
design, develop, model, test, prototype, determine how students have grown in technological
and implement solutions; analyze, evalu- their understanding and abilities as a literacy.
ate, refine, and redesign solutions; and direct result of instruction. Students may
reflect and assign value to processes and
outcomes. For example, students work-
ing in groups over a period of days or
Narratives of Guidelines provide further
weeks might examine a local technologi-

cal issue and develop recommendations
for correcting a potential problem.
Students make mistakes and learn that
mistakes can lead to successes.
elaboration and examples of the
B. Include variety in technological
content and performance-based
guidelines.
methods. Assessment models labora-
tory-classroom experiences. Assessment
incorporates multiple STL standards to
highlight the interrelationships among
technologies and the connections
between technology and other disci-
plines. Assessment uses new contexts to
allow students to make connections with
other technologies. Consequently, stu-
dents realize that technology is not sim-
ply a group of artifacts but involves a
specialized method of thinking and solv-
ing problems across a range of contexts
write about their understanding in reflec-
tive responses to questions, or they may
be directed to write to someone, such as
Notations consist of definitions, tables,
or disciplines. Multiple methods of per-
formance assessment provide informa-
tion that is readily accessible and easy to
a younger student who has not experi-
enced the topic, to explain their under-
standing of it. Students may be required
quotations, and correlations. The
read and understand, allowing teachers
to gather diverse information about stu-
dent progress toward technological liter-
to respond to a problem situation to
demonstrate their critical-thinking and
decision-making skills. Teachers help stu-
correlations show connections within and
acy. Therefore, each assessment method dents understand where they are and
CHAPTER THREE/Student Assessment Standards 31
between the standards in AETL and STL.
V I G N E T T E Formative Assessment:
Using Student Feedback
Assessment Purpose
The purpose of this formative assessment is to assist student learning by
assessing student understanding of the historical influence of technology.
Audience for Assessment Data

Description
As this assessment is intended to enhance student learning and ensure
This formative effective instruction, the data collected will only be available to the student
Vignettes give ideas or examples of how assessment uses

questioning as a
method for obtaining
and to the teacher.
STL Standards Assessed
standards can be implemented. student feedback. The

student feedback is
then used to inform

Standard 4, Benchmarks D, E, F, G
Standard 6, Benchmarks D, F, G
instruction, thereby Grade Level Appropriateness

increasing
instructional Grade 7
effectiveness. This Note: While this vignette highlights a seventh grade classroom, questioning techniques
vignette illustrates may be applied in classrooms at any grade level for formative assessment.
AETL Standard A-3 B,
D, and F. A social studies lesson was designed to further student understanding of
technology and its implications on society from a historical perspective.
Adapted from a vignette written Students understood technology as “the innovation, change, or modification
by Anna Sumner. of the natural environment to satisfy perceived human needs and wants”
(ITEA, 2000a, p. 242) but had not previously considered technology’s his-
torical influence on society. A lesson was developed to engage students in a
discussion on the societal implications of technology throughout history.
Ms. Yu initiated the lesson by asking questions to determine what students
believed were the influences of technology on history. The questions were
developed prior to the lesson and included: How has history been influenced
by technology? What can be learned from the past regarding the development
of new technologies? How has the development of new technologies histori-
cally influenced society? What is uncertain about the development of new
technologies in relation to society? Students were informed of their roles in
the process, and their responses were documented to provide an opportunity
for Ms. Yu to review and evaluate the feedback. Questioning revealed stu-
dent thinking, including understandings and misunderstandings. As the les-
son proceeded, student responses provided direction for the remainder of
the lesson and instruction.
Ms. Yu continued to judge student learning by identifying additional ques-
tions that made student thinking visible. Ms. Yu questioned students, lis-
tened to students, and observed students. As the lesson progressed, she
asked questions about the management of technology and included: How

Architecture of a Standard A standard is a
written statement
Standards, which are statements about what is valued that can be used for making a about what is
judgment of quality, are in sentence form in bold type. The standards are relatively large valued that can
in font size, as they represent a fundamental concept. be used for
making a
Note that each standard is identified by a prefix letter and number (e.g., P-4). Student judgment of
assessment standards are identified by the letter A, professional development standards quality.
are identified by the letters PD, and program standards are identified by the letter P.
Each standard is further identified by a number; however, this does not imply a sequen-
The goal is to
tial or ranking order. All of the standards are of equal importance. In other words, PD-5
meet all of the
is of equal importance to PD-1 or PD-3. The goal is to meet all of the standards in each standards in each
chapter. chapter.
Narrative of a Standard
A narrative follows each standard and explains the intent of the standard, including pos-
sible applications of the standard by the user.
Architecture of a Guideline A guideline is a
specific
Under each standard a number of guidelines are presented and must be addressed to requirement or
enable the user to meet a given standard. ITEA does not recommend that users elimi- enabler that
identifies what
nate any of the guidelines; however, users may add to the guidelines if there is a
needs to be done
need to accommodate local differences. in order to meet a
Guidelines are printed in bold type and are identified by a capital letter prefix such as A, standard.
B, C, etc. “Stem” statements appear before the guidelines are specified and should be
used when quoting individual guidelines. Stem statements connect individual guidelines Stem statements
to the context of the standard. appear before
guidelines to
Narrative of a Guideline connect them to
the standard
Each guideline is followed by a supporting narrative that provides further detail, clarity, addressed. Stem
and examples. statements
should always be
Notations used when
quoting
Notations consist of definitions, tables, quotations, and correlations. Definitions are individual
provided to offer further explanation or emphasis. Tables provide details or data relevant guidelines.
to AETL. Correlations identify the relationships within and between student assess-
ment, professional development, and program standards and are provided to increase
the usability of AETL. The intent of such referencing is to identify connections among
standards. In addition, STL is referenced as a means for illustrating correlations between
STL and AETL. Some correlations are inserted in the text of chapters 3, 4, and 5 imme-
diately following the standard narratives. Further, Appendix E is a chart that lists all of
these correlations as well as additional correlations at the guideline level.

Vignettes
Vignettes, by nature, provide “snapshots” of what may happen in student assessment,
professional development, or programs and are located in chapters 3, 4, and 5. They
provide detailed examples of how the standards can be put into practice. Some of the
vignettes are authentic, having been successfully used in laboratory-classrooms. A few of
the vignettes were generated especially for AETL and are fictional, not having been tried
and tested. Users should be cautioned not to read any vignette too literally or narrowly.
Redundancy of the Standards

Although the three sets of standards in AETL are presented in three separate chapters,
they are broadly overlapping in nature. For example, professional development must
address both student assessment and program enhancement. Likewise, programs must
incorporate the elements of both student assessment and professional development. As
with other standards documents, AETL should be viewed as dynamic and open to
review, revision, and improvement.
Designing the Future

STL sets forth the vision that all students can become technologically literate. To realize
this vision, STL and AETL must be implemented. This will take considerable time and
effort, but the rewards will be worthwhile in terms of personal, national, and global
achievement: a populace that has knowledge and abilities to understand how human
innovation can modify the world and universe in positive and productive ways.

C H A P T E R
A
Gallup poll on “What Americans Think
About Technology” (Rose & Dugger,
2002) revealed that while adults in the
United States are very interested in technology,
2
they are relatively uninformed about technology.
Using a National Science Foundation (NSF)
grant, the International Technology Education
Association (ITEA) commissioned the Gallup
Organization in the spring of 2001 to research
American citizens’ knowledge and abilities pur-
suant to technological literacy. Content estab-
lished in Standards for Technological Literacy:
Content for the Study of Technology (STL) (ITEA,
2000a) provided the foundational basis for the
17 questions used in the survey. It revealed the
public’s definition of technology to be very nar-
row when compared to the opinions of national
experts in the fields of technology, engineering,
and science. When provided with a more
accepted, encompassing definition of technology,
however, American citizens nearly unanimously
supported the need for technological literacy.
Moreover, they strongly supported the study of
technology in schools as a means to increase tech-
nological literacy for all people.
What is Technological Literacy?

ITEA’s STL defines technological literacy as the
ability to use, manage, assess, and understand
technology. More specifically
1. The ability to use technology involves the

successful operation of the systems of the
time. This includes knowing the compo-
nents of existing macrosystems and
human adaptive systems and knowing
how the systems behave.
2. The ability to manage technology
involves ensuring that all technological
activities are efficient and appropriate.
3. Assessing involves being able to make
judgments and decisions about technol-
ogy on an informed basis rather than an
emotional one.
“Technological 4. Understanding technology involves the ability to understand and synthesize
literacy facts and information into new insights (ITEA, 1996).
encompasses
three
From a related perspective, a publication prepared by the National Academy of
interdependent
dimensions— Engineering (NAE) and the National Research Council (NRC) entitled Technically
knowledge, ways Speaking: Why All Americans Need to Know More About Technology (2002), states that
of thinking and “technological literacy encompasses three interdependent dimensions—knowledge,
acting, and ways of thinking and acting, and capabilities. Like literacy in science, mathematics,
capabilities.” social studies, or language arts, the goal of technological literacy is to provide people
(NAE & NRC,
with the tools to participate intelligently and thoughtfully in the world around them”
2002, p. 3)
(p. 3).
Technological literacy, like other forms of literacy, is what every person needs in order to
be an informed and contributing citizen for the world of today and tomorrow.
Therefore students, to achieve technological literacy, must develop a broad range of
technological knowledge and abilities. On the other hand, technological competency is
what some people need to be prepared to be successful in a technical career. Teachers
must be technologically competent to direct student learning.
What is Technology?
Technological How can technology best be defined? STL defines technology as “the innovation,
literacy, like change, or modification of the natural environment in order to satisfy perceived human
other forms of wants and needs” (ITEA, 2000a, p. 242). This is compatible with the definition pro-
literacy, is what
vided in the National Science Education Standards, which states, “. . . the goal of tech-
every person
needs in order to nology is to make modifications in the world to meet human needs” (NRC, 1996,
be an informed p. 24). Parallel to these definitions, the American Association for the Advancement of
and contributing Science’s (AAAS) Benchmarks for Science Literacy presents the following: “In the broadest
citizen for the sense, technology extends our abilities to change the world: to cut, shape, or put
world of today together materials; to move things from one place to another; to reach farther with our
and tomorrow. On
hands, voices, and senses” (1993, p. 41). In the NAE and NRC publication, Technically
the other hand,
technological
Speaking, technology is described as “. . . the process by which humans modify nature to
competency is meet their needs and wants” (2002, p. 2). All four of these definitions of technology are
what some people very similar and reinforce each other.
need to be
prepared to be What is the Study of Technology?
successful in a
technical career. Schools that encourage the study of technology provide all students with concepts and
experiences necessary to develop understanding and abilities for the constantly changing
technological world (ITEA, 1996). The study of technology enhances student learning
by highlighting the relationships among technologies and between technology and
other school subjects, including science, mathematics, social studies, language arts, and
other content areas (ITEA, 2000a). Students are engaged in activities that promote
technological literacy through the development of knowledge and abilities necessary to
make informed decisions regarding the use and management of technology. The study
of technology is comprehensive, incorporating content identified in STL. Technology
10 CHAPTER TWO/Principles and Related Definitions

teachers and other content area teachers provide learning opportunities that focus on The study of
the content in STL. The study of technology begins in kindergarten and progresses technology is any
formal or
through Grade 12, providing continuous learning opportunities to students.
informal
While the study of technology occurs in a continuous, cross-curricular fashion, it is also education about
promoted in classrooms specifically charged to develop technologically literate students. human
innovation,
Technology education plays a crucial role in advancing students toward technological
change, or
literacy. Students engage in cognitive and psychomotor activities that foster critical modification of
thinking, decision making, and problem solving related to the use, management, and the natural
evaluation of the designed world. environment.
Technology education is not the same as educational technology. Sometimes referred to

as instructional technology, educational technology involves using technological devel-
opments, such as computers, audiovisual equipment, and mass media, as tools to Technology
enhance and optimize the teaching and learning environment in all school subjects, education is NOT
including technology education. Technology education, however, is a school subject the same as
educational
specifically designed to help students develop technological literacy.
technology.
The student assessment, professional development, and program standards provided in
AETL were developed to facilitate technological literacy for all students. At the elemen-
tary level, the implementation of STL and AETL will be a major responsibility of the
regular classroom teacher. At the middle and high school levels, technology teachers
facilitate technological literacy learning in dedicated technology laboratory-classrooms.
Teachers of other content areas should receive professional development to allow them
to incorporate the content in STL and AETL into their teaching as appropriate. For
programs to effectively support technological literacy for all students, elementary teach-
ers, technology teachers, and other content area teachers must work together to realize
the vision of STL and AETL.
Characteristics of a Technologically Literate Person

Technologically literate people are problem solvers who consider technological issues “Technological
from different points of view and relate them to a variety of contexts. They understand literacy is more
technological impacts and consequences, acknowledging that the solution to one prob- of a capacity to
understand the
lem may create other problems. They also understand that solutions often involve trade-
broader
offs, which necessitate accepting less of one quality in order to gain more of another. technological
They appreciate the interrelationships between technology and individuals, society, and world rather than
the environment. Technically Speaking states, “Technological literacy is more of a capac- an ability to work
ity to understand the broader technological world rather than an ability to work with with specific
specific pieces of it” (NAE & NRC, 2002, p. 22). pieces of it.”
(NAE & NRC,
Technologically literate people understand that technology involves systems, which are 2002, p. 22)
groups of interrelated components designed to collectively achieve a desired goal or
goals. No single component, device, or process can be considered without understand-
ing its relationships to all other components, devices, and processes in the system. Those
who are technologically literate have the ability to use concepts from science, mathe-
matics, social studies, language arts, and other content areas as tools for understanding
CHAPTER TWO/Principles and Related Definitions 11

and managing technological systems. Therefore, technologically literate people use a
strong systems-oriented, creative, and productive approach to thinking about and solv-
ing technological problems.
Technologically literate people can identify appropriate solutions and assess and forecast
the results of implementing the chosen solution. They understand the major technolog-
ical concepts behind current issues and appreciate the importance of fundamental tech-
nological developments. They are skilled in the safe use of technological processes that
may be prerequisites for their careers, health, or enjoyment. Most importantly, techno-
logically literate people understand that technology is the result of human activity
(ITEA, 1996).
Why is Technological Literacy Important?

“The health of Several groups, organizations, agencies, and institutions have made the case for techno-
the U.S. economy logical literacy, including ITEA (1996, 2000a; Rose & Dugger, 2002) as well as NAE
. . . will depend and NRC (2002). As the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century reported
not only on
in 2001: “The health of the U.S. economy . . . will depend not only on [science, math,
[science, math,
and engineering]
and engineering] professionals but also on a populace that can effectively assimilate a
professionals but wide range of new tools and technologies” (p. 39).
also on a
The results of the ITEA Gallup Poll indicate a very narrow view of technology by the
populace that can
effectively American public, who define it as primarily computers and the Internet. A number of
assimilate a wide questions in the poll focused on the study of technology and technological literacy as a
range of new part of the school curriculum. When provided with a definition of technology more
tools and accepted by experts in the field, nearly all of the respondents (97%) agreed that schools
technologies.” should include the study of technology in the curriculum. Of those 97%, over half said
(U.S. Commission
that they thought the study of technology should be required as a school subject. The
on National
Security/21st
public believes technological literacy should be a part of high school graduation
Century, 2001, requirements.
p. 39)
How widespread is technological literacy among Americans today? Unfortunately, no
definitive research exists on this topic. Levels of technological literacy vary from person
to person and depend upon backgrounds, education, interests, attitudes, and abilities.
Many people are not prepared to perform routine technological activities or appreciate
the significance of engineering breakthroughs.
The study of technology has traditionally not been accepted as a core subject area
requirement in many elementary, middle, and high schools. For most individuals, tech-
nological literacy has been traditionally gained through daily activities. However, tech-
nological processes and systems have become so complex that the happenstance
approach is no longer effective. A massive, coordinated effort is needed in order to
achieve a technologically literate populace. This should involve schools, mass media and
entertainment outlets, book publishers, and museums. Schools, in collaboration with
the community, must bear the bulk of this effort, because the educational system can
provide the most comprehensive study of technology.

Other Relevant Definitions Science deals with
“. . . under-
The principal discipline being advocated in this document is technology, which is stand[ing] the
closely related to science, mathematics, and engineering. Science, which deals with natural world.”
“. . . understand[ing] the natural world” (NRC, 1996, p. 24), is the underpinning of (NRC, 1996, p. 24)
technology. Science is concerned with “what is” in the natural world, while technology
deals with “what can be” invented, innovated, or designed from the natural world.
Rodger Bybee, President of Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), explains:
The lack of technological literacy is compounded by one prevalent misconception.
When asked to define technology, most individuals reply with the archaic, and mostly
erroneous, idea that technology is applied science. Although this definition of technol-
ogy has a long standing in this country, it is well past time to establish a new under-
standing about technology . . . it is in the interest of science, science education, and
society to help students and all citizens develop a greater understanding and apprecia-
tion for some of the fundamental concepts and processes of technology and engineer-
ing. (2000, pp. 23–24)
“Mathematics is the science of patterns and relationships” (AAAS, 1993, p. 23). It pro- “Mathematics is
vides an exact language for technology, science, and engineering. Developments in tech- the science of
nology, such as the computer, stimulate mathematics, just as developments in patterns and
relationships.”
mathematics often enhance innovations in technology. One example of this is mathe-
(AAAS, 1993,
matical modeling that can assist technological design by simulating how a proposed sys- p. 23)
tem may operate.
“Engineering is the profession in which a knowledge of the mathematical and natural
sciences gained by study, experience, and practice is applied with judgment to develop
ways to utilize economically the materials and forces of nature for the benefit of
mankind” (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology [ABET], 2002, back “Engineering is
cover). There are strong philosophical connections between the disciplines of technol- the profession in
ogy and engineering. The engineering profession has begun to work with technology which a
knowledge of the
teachers to develop alliances for infusing engineering concepts into K–12 education.
mathematical and
The alliances will provide a mechanism for greater appreciation and understanding of natural sciences
engineering and technology. The National Academy of Engineering is an avid supporter gained by study,
of technological literacy. experience, and
practices is
Definitions Related to Education applied with
judgments to
Many times in documents such as this, educational terms like program, content, profes- develop ways to
sional development, curricula, instruction, student assessment, learning environment, stu- utilize
dent learning, and others are presented without definition. In hopes of providing a economically the
materials and
better understanding of these terms as they relate to the study of technology, some spe-
forces of nature
cific meanings are provided here as well as in the Glossary (Appendix G). for the benefit of
The term program is a large and all-encompassing term in education. In this document, mankind.” (ABET,
2002, back cover)
program refers to everything that affects student learning, including content, profes-
sional development, curricula, instruction, student assessment, and the learning envi-
ronment, implemented across grade levels. For example, a middle school technology

Figure 2. Graphic Model of Selected Components in a
Middle School Technology Program (Grades 6–8)
Student Learning
Assessment Environment
Student
Learning
Curricula Instruction
Professional
Development
Content
Program
program would include everything that affects student learning in Grades 6–8 in a
school or school district. A graphic model of selected components in a middle school
technology program is shown in Figure 2.
Programs for the study of technology support student attainment of technological liter-
acy through technology programs as well as other content area programs. In other
words, programs for the study of technology are cross-curricular in nature. The technol-
ogy program incorporates the study of technology across grade levels as a core subject of
inherent value. The cross-curricular technology program manages the study of technol-
ogy across grade levels and disciplines.
In the study of technology, the program encompasses the content, which delineates the
cognitive knowledge and tactile abilities students should learn in order to become tech-
nologically literate. Content may be viewed as the subject-matter ingredients that go
into the curriculum. The content for the study of technology is provided in STL.
Professional development is a continuous process of lifelong learning and growth that
begins early in life, continues through the undergraduate, pre-service experience, and
extends through the in-service years. For program content to be aligned with STL,
teachers must have access to professional development.
Curricula are the way the content is delivered each day in laboratory-classrooms.
Curricula include the structure, organization, balance, and presentation of the content
to the student and provide the plan followed by the teacher for instruction. STL is not a
curriculum.
Instruction is the actual teaching process used by the teacher to deliver the content to all
students. It involves various teaching methods, strategies, and techniques (e.g., lectures,
questioning, demonstrations, etc.). Instruction also requires an understanding of how
students learn.
Student assessment refers to the systematic, multi-step process of collecting evidence on
student learning, understanding, and abilities and using that information to inform
instruction and provide feedback to the learner, thereby enhancing student learning. In
order to collect data in some quantifiable manner, the process of measurement is
employed.
The learning environment is the place where instruction occurs. It could be a classroom
or a laboratory, or it could be a non-conventional location, such as a museum, a busi-
ness or industry, or an outdoor location. The learning environment consists of such
things as space, equipment, resources (including supplies and materials), and safety and
health requirements.
The primary purpose of the program is to facilitate and enhance student learning (see
Figure 2). Content, professional development, curricula, instruction, student assess-
ment, and the learning environment must be coordinated for student learning to be
effective.
Summary
Technological literacy is imperative for the twenty-first century. Employing technology, AETL, along with
humans have changed the world. Understanding the symbiotic relationships between STL, provides
technology and science, mathematics, social studies, language arts, and other content guidance for
improving
areas is vital for the future. The principles and definitions presented in this chapter are
student learning
intended to help the user better comprehend the standards presented in this document. and provides
STL and AETL provide many of the tools necessary to reform technology programs to direction for the
ensure efficiency and effectiveness. AETL (student assessment, professional develop- future study of
ment, and program), along with STL (content), provides guidance for improving stu- technology.
dent learning and provides direction for the future study of technology.

C H A P T E R
T
he standards in this chapter describe effec-
tive and appropriate technological literacy
assessment practices to be used by teach-
ers and by local, district, state/provincial/regional,
3
and national/federal entities. These assessment
standards are based on Standards for Technological
Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology (STL)
(ITEA, 2000a). They are intended to be imple-
mented in conjunction with STL as well as with
the professional development and program stan-
dards included in Advancing Excellence in
Technological Literacy: Student Assessment, Profes-
sional Development, and Program Standards
(AETL). Therefore, these standards are of optimal
use when curriculum and instruction have incor-
porated the concepts and principles identified in
STL; accordingly, these standards apply to
assessment of student technological literacy in
any K–12 classroom, not just within technology
laboratory-classrooms.
In designing assessment tools and methods, teach-
ers should refer to STL, but the statements there
should not be used as criteria for rote memoriza-
tion of factual information and routine proce-
dures. The student who can merely recite the
standards is not necessarily progressing toward
technological literacy. The student who demon-
strates understanding and uses the content, con-
cepts, and principles that STL describes is
becoming technologically literate.
These student Definition of Student Assessment
assessment
standards apply For the purposes of this document, student assessment is defined as the systematic,
to assessment of multi-step process of collecting evidence on student learning, understanding, and abili-
student ties and using that information to inform instruction and provide feedback to the
technological learner, thereby enhancing student learning.
literacy in any
K–12 classroom.
Goals and Purposes of Assessing Technological Literacy
Assessment goals define who and when to assess and what type of assessment tool or
method to use. The ultimate goal of these assessment standards is to ensure that all stu-
dents achieve technological literacy.
While the data produced by student assessment are used by many people for a variety of
The three main purposes, the primary purpose of assessment should be to improve teaching and
purposes of
learning. The National Research Council (NRC) supports this purpose in a report enti-
assessment
include
tled, Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment
assessment to (2001b). This report stipulates three main purposes of assessment:
assist learning,
1. Assessment to assist learning

assessment of
individual 2. Assessment of individual achievement
achievement, and 3. Assessment to evaluate programs
assessment to
These student assessment standards focus on Purposes 1 and 2. Standards for Purpose 3
evaluate
programs. (NRC, are addressed in chapter 4, “Professional Development Standards,” and provided in
2001b) chapter 5, “Program Standards.” Therefore, the primary goal of student assessment

should be to collect data on the knowl-
Table 5. Sample Assessment Approaches
edge and abilities of each individual stu-
for Technological Literacy
dent and to use this information to
Computerized Assessment
improve the teaching and learning process Demonstrations/Presentations/Multimedia
for all students. Individual and Group Activities
Informal Observations/Discussions
The purpose of assessment must be con- Open-Ended Questioning
sidered when designing assessment tools Paper-and-Pencil Tests
and methods. For example, teachers may Peer Assessment
need to collect more or different informa- Performances
Portfolios
tion to determine if students can demon- Projects/Products/Media
strate a specific process than they would to Reports/Research
determine if students can explain the same Rubrics/Checklists
process. Furthermore, when applying or Student Interviews – Written and Oral
Student Self Reflection/Assessment
interpreting assessment data, teachers, Videos/Slide Shows/Posters
administrators, and policymakers should Work Samples
recall the original purpose of the assess-
ment tool or method. Care must be taken to prevent isolated assessment results from
becoming representations of the larger educational system.
In any case, a singular assessment tool or method is unlikely to achieve all three NRC-
identified purposes of assessment: “In general, the more purposes a single assessment
aims to serve, the more each purpose will be compromised” (NRC, 2001b, pp. 40–41).
Because no single tool or method can “do it all,” assessment of technological literacy
should utilize multiple approaches to assess both student cognition and performance
(see Table 5).
Program Permeability
The vision behind the student assessment standards calls on teachers, administrators,
and policymakers to perpetuate interchange between elements of the program, includ-
ing content, professional development, curricula, instruction, student assessment, and
the learning environment, in all areas of learning. The standards and guidelines in chap-
ters 3, 4, and 5 of AETL are overlapping in nature to facilitate such interchange.
Audiences for “Student Assessment Standards”

Primary audience:
Teachers
Other targeted audiences:

Students
Parents
Administrators
Supervisors
Teacher Educators
Policymakers
General Public

S T AConsistencyN D A R D
A-1 with STL
Standard A-1: Assessment of student learning

will be consistent with Standards for
Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of
Technology (STL).
S
When TL articulates what every student should know and be able to do in technology,
appropriately the content that enables students to use, manage, assess, and understand technol-
used, classroom- ogy. Assessment may be designed to further the goals of STL, serving not only to
based formative
assess but also to advance technological literacy. For example, assessment may be
assessment
positively affects designed to present students with situations that are unfamiliar to determine how well
learning. (Black & students can use what they have learned previously. This requires students to build on
Wiliam,1998) prior knowledge, interests, experiences, and abilities and aids them in becoming inde-
pendent learners. P. Black and D. Wiliam (1998) revealed that when appropriately used,
classroom-based formative assessment positively affects learning.
Adherence to standards ensures comprehensiveness in assessing technological literacy,
but STL does not prescribe an assessment tool or method. Ideas, concepts, and princi-
ples that add to STL may be included in assessment. Assessment must be flexible and
easily modified, reflective of the dynamic, evolving nature of technology.
Correlates with Standard A-2: Student assessment that is consistent with STL should be explicitly matched
to its intended purpose.
Correlates with Standard A-3: Student assessment that is consistent with STL should be derived from
research-based assessment principles.
Correlates with Standard A-4: Student assessment that is consistent with STL will reflect practical con-
texts consistent with the nature of technology.
Correlates with Standard PD-1: For student assessment to be consistent with STL, teachers must attain
knowledge, abilities, and understanding consistent with STL.
Correlates with Standard PD-3: For student assessment to be consistent with STL, teachers must be pre-
pared to design and evaluate technology curricula and programs.
Correlates with Standard P-1: For student assessment to be consistent with STL, technology program
development must be consistent with STL.
Correlates with Standard P-3: For student assessment to be consistent with STL, technology program eval-
uation must ensure and facilitate technological literacy for all students.

S T A N D A R D
A-1 Consistency
with STL

teachers consistently
A. Administer comprehensive plan- giving students the opportunity to
ning and development across disci- demonstrate their abilities to use and
plines. Assessment of technological apply technological knowledge and skills
literacy is administered across disciplines. as well as adjust their understandings in
Students study technology in all content novel, diverse, and difficult contexts.
areas, as appropriate, to develop techno- Assessment involves gathering data on
logical literacy. Assessment is planned how well a student is able to do some-
and developed accordingly to determine thing using tactile (hands-on)
student progression toward technological knowledge.
literacy.
E. Guide student abilities to operate
B. Incorporate comprehensive plan- within the affective domain, utiliz-
ning and development across grade ing perspective, empathy, and self
levels. Assessment is planned in con- assessment. Assessment activities focus
junction with the ongoing nature of the on student abilities to grasp the signifi-
study of technology throughout Grades cance of technology in its many forms.
K–12. Assessment coordinates with the Simulations or real applications require
STL benchmarks, which are appropriate students to perform tasks that demon-
to specific grade levels (K–2, 3–5, 6–8, strate their knowledge and understand-
and 9–12). Attaining technological liter- ing of the positive and negative impacts
acy is ongoing throughout the student and consequences in the development
educational experience, and assessment and use of technology. Students are
accommodates this goal. assessed on how well they evaluate differ-
ent points of view and adopt critical per-
C. Include cognitive learning ele-
spectives. Students are assessed on their
ments for solving technological
ability to empathize; for example, they
problems. Assessment provides all stu-
might be asked to investigate the pro-
dents with opportunities to research and
cesses, procedures, and frustrations of an
develop, design, invent and innovate,
inventor or innovator of a particular arti-
experiment, and troubleshoot. Students
fact. Students are encouraged to self
are given opportunities to explain, inter-
assess their current abilities as well as
pret, and apply knowledge.
their past performance, asking questions
D. Include psychomotor learning such as: How have my activities shown
elements for applying technology. improvement? How might I do this dif-
Assessment is based on student perfor- ferently if given the opportunity to do it
mance (performance-based assessment), again?

S T AIntended N D A R D
A-2 Purpose
Standard A-2: Assessment of student learning will

be explicitly matched to the intended purpose.
E
ffective assessment incorporates a variety of formative and summative practices
and provides all students with the opportunity to demonstrate their understand-
ing and abilities. Formative assessment is ongoing assessment in the classroom. It
provides information to students and teachers to improve teaching and learning.
Summative assessment is the cumulative assessment that usually occurs at the end of a
unit, topic, project, or problem. It identifies what students have learned and judges stu-
dent performance against previously identified standards. Summative assessment is most
often thought of as final exams, but it also may be a portfolio of student work.
Student assessment usually summons an image of final exams or other large-scale assess-
ment tools and methods. Such assessment does not reflect the full possibilities associ-
ated with day-to-day classroom assessment. Teachers must be aware of the useful
information assessment provides about student learning during routine activities and
interactions. Note, however, that even routine assessment must have clarity of purpose
and be explicitly matched to the intended purpose.
Correlates with Standard A-1: Student assessment that is explicitly matched to its intended purpose
should be consistent with STL.
Correlates with Standard A-3: Student assessment that is explicitly matched to its intended purpose
should be derived from research-based assessment principles.
Correlates with Standard PD-3: For student assessment to be explicitly matched to its intended purpose,
teachers must be prepared to design and evaluate technology curricula and programs.
Correlates with Standard P-3: For student assessment to be explicitly matched to its intended purpose,
technology program evaluation should ensure and facilitate technological literacy for all students.
Refer to STL Standards 1-20: STL provides the content for the study of technology at the elementary, mid-
dle, and high school levels. Accordingly, assessment should have purpose rooted in STL.

S T A N D A R D
A-2 Intended
Purpose

A. Formulate a statement of purpose student ability levels. Assessment does
for assessment tools. The purpose of not attempt to “trick” students.
the assessment tool is clear to students as Furthermore, students and teachers rec-
well as other audiences, to ensure accu- ognize there is more than one path to
rate interpretation of assessment data. success. Assessment focuses on helping
The purpose establishes focus and students develop technological literacy
ensures that the required information is rather than having students produce rote
collected. Assessment is an open process, responses without any understanding.
where students are informed about what Assessment methods measure the correct-
they need to know, what they should be ness of the underlying assumptions in a
able to do, how they will demonstrate design or technological solution and the
their knowledge and abilities, and what appropriateness of the solution in meet-
the impacts of assessment will be. The ing the criteria and constraints. While it
purpose is coordinated with STL to is acknowledged that some solutions are,
establish a basis for accurate comparison in fact, better than others, care is taken
of technological literacy levels against to ensure that incorrect work leading to
formalized standards. misunderstanding is corrected.
B. Identify and consider the D. Establish valid and reliable mea-

intended audience in designing surements that are reflective of
assessment tools and reporting classroom experiences. Teachers uti-
assessment data. Teachers consider lize valid and reliable assessment tools
the intended audience in analyzing and and methods in which the intended goals
reporting the results of student assess- of assessment are achieved. Assessment
ment. If assessment is intended to assist provides a means to produce measurable
student learning, it may have a very lim- evidence of learning. Validity and relia-
ited audience: the student only or the bility are considered for both formative
student and the teacher. If assessment is and summative assessment. Validity is
to determine what level of technological used to help assure that assessment
literacy a student has achieved, the matches the identified purpose. Teachers
intended audience may be broader, reflect upon the definitions of validity
including parents, administrators, policy- and reliability and know that validity
makers, and even the general public. focuses on the accuracy or truth of the
information (data) collected in the assess-
C. Utilize fair and equitable student ment process, while reliability attempts
assessment methods. Teachers discuss to answer concerns about the consistency
student expectations openly with stu- of the information (data) collected.
dents prior to learning activities, and stu- Careful documentation and systematic
dent expectations remain consistent observation provide an effective assess-
throughout the assessment process. ment environment. To address reliability
Consequently, students are aware of how and avoid the possibility of bias, assess-
they must demonstrate their knowledge ment data are drawn from several
and abilities. Assessment accommodates sources.
S T AResearch-Based
N D A R D
A-3 Assessment Principles
Standard A-3: Assessment of student learning will

be systematic and derived from research-based
assessment principles.
T
Assessment he National Research Council’s Knowing What Students Know (NRC, 2001b) dis-
should be based cusses the science and design of assessment. It asserts that one type of assessment
on the three does not fit all individuals. Assessment is always a process of reasoning from evi-
pillars of the
dence. By its nature, assessment “only estimates . . . what a person knows and can do”
assessment
triangle—
(NRC, 2001b, p. 2). Assessment should be based on the three pillars of the assessment
cognition, triangle—cognition, observation, and interpretation—which must be explicitly connected
observation, and and designed as a coordinated whole (NRC, 2001b). Like curricula, assessment should be
interpretation. designed to accommodate a variety of developmental levels and intelligences as well as
(NRC, 2001b) provide pre-assessment activities to familiarize all students with the content.
Research indicates that learning occurs in a holistic fashion and includes knowledge,
ways of thinking and acting, and the capability to use knowledge in the real world
(NAE & NRC, 2002). Assessment should involve close transfer of prior knowledge and
experience and be consistently structured to assess tasks from a well-planned curricu-

lum. “[Assessment should] be aligned with curriculum and instruction if it is to support
learning” (NRC, 2001b, p. 3).
“[Assessment
should] be
Correlates with Standard A-1: Student assessment that is systematic and research-based should be con-
aligned with sistent with STL.
curriculum and Correlates with Standard A-2: Student assessment that is systematic and research-based will be explic-
instruction if it is itly matched to its intended purpose.
to support Correlates with Standard PD-2: For student assessment to be systematic and research-based, teachers
learning.” (NRC, must attain educational perspectives on students as learners of technology.
Correlates with Standard PD-3: For student assessment to be systematic and research-based, teachers
2001b, p. 3)
must be prepared to design and evaluate technology curricula and programs that enable all students
to attain technological literacy.
Correlates with Standard P-3: For student assessment to be systematic and research-based, technology
program evaluation must ensure and facilitate technological literacy for all students.

S T A N D A R D
A-3 Research-Based
Assessment Principles

A. Remain current with research on B. Devise a formative assessment
student learning and assessment. plan. Formative assessment is planned
Teachers consider current research on but adaptable, incorporating both formal
how students acquire new knowledge, and informal techniques. For example,
how that new knowledge is connected to appropriate and unobtrusive assessment
past understandings, and how future is used to determine what misconcep-
learning can be enhanced through assess- tions students may be developing.
ment. Teachers design assessment tools Formative assessment tools and methods
and methods according to current could include questioning students,
research. For example, formative assess- listening to students, and observing stu-
ment, or assessment to assist learning, is dents. Formative assessment is inter-
a primary purpose for performing woven throughout instruction and
assessment. provides information on the effectiveness

S T AResearch-Based
N D A R D
A-3 Assessment Principles
of instruction. This type of assessment derstanding and identifies where the

may involve student presentations or student has missed a key concept.
demonstrations, either individually or Formative assessment is primarily used to
collectively. Formative assessment reveals facilitate instructional adjustment in
student progress toward technological lit- order to enhance student learning.
eracy. For example, rather than simply
revealing that a student does not C. Establish a summative assess-
understand a design process, formative ment plan. Summative assessment
assessment reveals details of the misun- occurs at prescribed intervals and pro-

S T A N D A R D
A-3 Research-Based
Assessment Principles
vides information on the level of student and differences, including interests, cul-
attainment of technological literacy. For tures, abilities, socio-economic back-
example, the most common form of grounds, and special needs. Teachers
summative assessment is conducted by acknowledge that accommodating stu-
teachers at the end of a unit of study or dents may require multiple instruments to
at the end of a grading period. Sum- assess a single idea or concept. Unexpected
mative assessment tools and methods responses are considered in light of prior
may include student learning activities student experiences, which influence stu-
that are used to build on previous knowl- dent reactions to unique situations. For
edge, such as student work presented in a example, assessment may sometimes
portfolio. Formalized assessment allows provide teachers and students with results
accurate comparison of assessment that are the consequence of misconcep-
results, and technological literacy assess- tions that students have developed over
ment tools and methods should be based time. Teachers are prepared for this and
upon the principles in STL. adjust instruction and future lessons and
assessment tools and methods accordingly.
D. Facilitate enhancement of stu-
dent learning. Assessment is relevant F. Include students in the assess-
to students and to the learning goal. ment process. Students are involved in
Assessment promotes learning by provid- the assessment process, making them
ing an opportunity for students to apply aware of what is expected of them.
knowledge and abilities while offering Students are provided with opportunities
feedback related to their understandings. to learn more about the assessment
Assessment is a continuous process, an process and even participate in
integral part of instruction and the larger establishing the criteria, such as in
classroom and educational experiences. establishing criteria for an assessment
Accordingly, students reflect upon assess- rubric. Students are given opportunities
ment results to modify their learning, for self and peer assessment, requiring
and teachers reflect upon assessment them to expand on their own critical
results to adjust instruction. thinking. Students may be provided with
options to work in teams, pairs, or
E. Accommodate for student com- individually, which impacts the assess-
monality and diversity. Assessment is ment process.
designed with consideration for students.
Recognition is given to student similarities

V I G N E T T E Formative Assessment:
Using Student Feedback
Assessment Purpose
The purpose of this formative assessment is to assist student learning by
assessing student understanding of the historical influence of technology.
Description Audience for Assessment Data

As this assessment is intended to enhance student learning and ensure
This formative
effective instruction, the data collected will only be available to the student
assessment uses and to the teacher.
questioning as a
method for obtaining STL Standards Assessed
student feedback. The
student feedback is Standard 4, Benchmarks D, E, F, G
then used to inform Standard 6, Benchmarks D, F, G
instruction, thereby
increasing
Grade Level Appropriateness
instructional Grade 7
effectiveness. This
Note: While this vignette highlights a seventh grade classroom, questioning techniques
vignette illustrates may be applied in classrooms at any grade level for formative assessment.
AETL Standard A-3 B,
D, and F. A social studies lesson was designed to further student understanding of
technology and its implications on society from a historical perspective.
Adapted from a vignette written Students understood technology as “the innovation, change, or modification
by Anna Sumner. of the natural environment to satisfy perceived human needs and wants”
(ITEA, 2000a, p. 242) but had not previously considered technology’s his-
torical influence on society. A lesson was developed to engage students in a
discussion on the societal implications of technology throughout history.
Ms. Yu initiated the lesson by asking questions to determine what students
believed were the influences of technology on history. The questions were
developed prior to the lesson and included: How has history been influenced
by technology? What can be learned from the past regarding the development
of new technologies? How has the development of new technologies histori-
cally influenced society? What is uncertain about the development of new
technologies in relation to society? Students were informed of their roles in
the process, and their responses were documented to provide an opportunity
for Ms. Yu to review and evaluate the feedback. Questioning revealed stu-
dent thinking, including understandings and misunderstandings. As the les-
son proceeded, student responses provided direction for the remainder of
the lesson and instruction.
Ms. Yu continued to judge student learning by identifying additional ques-
tions that made student thinking visible. Ms. Yu questioned students, lis-
tened to students, and observed students. As the lesson progressed, she
asked questions about the management of technology and included: How

can society deal with the continuously changing nature of technology? Can
society “manage” technology to prevent new developments from causing it to
feel out of control? How can technology be managed to provide the most ben-
efit and least amount of harm?
At the conclusion of the lesson, feedback was again gathered to assess stu-
dent understanding. Students were asked, How can societal values and
beliefs be protected in a world that is increasingly technologically dependent?
As students provided responses, Ms. Yu was able to compare the ideas
shared with those shared throughout the progression of the lesson. Ms. Yu
was able to determine which concepts future lessons should focus on to
enhance student understandings while dispelling misunderstandings.
Additionally, Ms. Yu asked the students questions related to the format of
instruction rather than the content of the lesson. Student responses could
be used to revise the lesson format and enhance future instruction. Such
questions included: What did you like/dislike about this lesson? Why? Be spe-
cific! What did you learn about the societal implications of technology? What
additional information would have been helpful for your understanding of the
societal implications of technology? Generalities such as: “Because it was
fun” or “It was boring” were not accepted. Students were required to vali-
date their opinions. Questioning ended with: What could be done to improve
this lesson/activity? Be specific! Once again, students were required to vali-
date their opinions.
Ms. Yu set aside reflective time to assess gathered feedback and make
judgements regarding the quality of her instruction. Ms. Yu revised the
activities and curricula to correct student misconceptions and enhance stu-
dent learning.
Ms. Yu retained the information obtained through feedback to use later,
when she reassessed program revisions. She knew that a chronological
record would be useful in judging program progression throughout the
implementation process.

S T APractical N D A R D
A-4 Contexts

will reflect practical contexts consistent with the
nature of technology.
“R
“Research on esearch on learning finds that many students learn best in experiential
learning finds ways—by doing, rather than only seeing or hearing—and the study of
that many technology emphasizes and capitalizes on such active learning” (ITEA,
students learn
2000a, p. 5). Likewise, student assessment must reflect the active, dynamic nature of the
best in
experiential
study of technology and the manner in which people draw upon and exercise knowl-
ways—by doing, edge and abilities acquired through experience. The practical contexts, which are consis-
rather than only tent with the essence of technology, are found in STL. Assessment should draw from a
seeing or variety of sources and involve a mixture of opportunities for students to demonstrate
hearing—and the their understanding, abilities, and critical-thinking skills.
study of
technology Teachers should use a variety of assessment tools and methods that require students to
emphasizes and use higher-order thinking skills. For example, holistic approaches to assessment take
capitalizes on forms other than traditional paper-and-pencil tests and can measure abilities that tradi-
such active
tional tests cannot. Holistic approaches may include demonstrated performance and
learning.” (ITEA,
student portfolios as a natural course of instruction and authentic assessment that
2000a, p. 5)
requires students to perform complex tasks representative of real life.
Correlates with Standard A-1: Student assessment that reflects practical contexts consistent with the
nature of technology should be consistent with STL.
nature of technology, teachers must attain knowledge, abilities, and understanding consistent with
STL.
nature of technology, teachers must be prepared to design and evaluate technology curricula and pro-
grams that enable all students to attain technological literacy.
nature of technology, technology program development must be consistent with STL.
nature of technology, technology program evaluation must ensure and facilitate technological literacy
for all students.

S T A N D A R D
A-4 Practical
Contexts

A. Incorporate technological prob- may provide different information about
lem solving. Assessment provides student understanding of content.
teachers with feedback about what stu-
Teachers help
dents actually know and can do. Assess- C. Facilitate critical thinking and
students
ment may require students to identify decision making. Assessment requires understand where
technological problems, needs, and measuring critical thinking and transfer they are and
opportunities within a cultural context; of knowledge to new situations. Teachers should be in their
write and construct problem statements; may use a pre- and post-test approach to development of
design, develop, model, test, prototype, determine how students have grown in technological
and implement solutions; analyze, evalu- their understanding and abilities as a literacy.
ate, refine, and redesign solutions; and direct result of instruction. Students may
reflect and assign value to processes and
outcomes. For example, students work-
ing in groups over a period of days or
weeks might examine a local technologi-
cal issue and develop recommendations
for correcting a potential problem.
Students make mistakes and learn that
mistakes can lead to successes.
B. Include variety in technological

content and performance-based
methods. Assessment models labora-
tory-classroom experiences. Assessment
incorporates multiple STL standards to
highlight the interrelationships among
technologies and the connections
between technology and other disci-
plines. Assessment uses new contexts to
allow students to make connections with
other technologies. Consequently, stu-
dents realize that technology is not sim-
ply a group of artifacts but involves a write about their understanding in reflec-
specialized method of thinking and solv- tive responses to questions, or they may
ing problems across a range of contexts be directed to write to someone, such as
or disciplines. Multiple methods of per- a younger student who has not experi-
formance assessment provide informa- enced the topic, to explain their under-
tion that is readily accessible and easy to standing of it. Students may be required
read and understand, allowing teachers to respond to a problem situation to
to gather diverse information about stu- demonstrate their critical-thinking and
dent progress toward technological liter- decision-making skills. Teachers help stu-
acy. Therefore, each assessment method dents understand where they are and
S T APractical N D A R D
A-4 Contexts
should be in their development of tech- and appropriate technological resources.

nological literacy. For example, students are assessed on
their abilities to make accurate measure-
D. Accommodate for modification to ments; to use appropriate technology,
student assessment. Assessment of science, and mathematics principles; to
technological literacy is flexible and easily be creative in designing technological
modified, reflective of the dynamic, solutions; and also on the rigor of their
evolving nature of technology. For exam- methodology and the quality of the ques-
ple, assessment enables modifications to tions they pursue. Students are required
accommodate new advances in technol- to demonstrate their knowledge and abil-
ogy, current trends in technological ities by creating a response or product
products, and research on student learn- that resembles practical experiences.
ing and assessment. Many different levels of literacy are
assessed in contexts that closely mirror
E. Utilize authentic assessment. situations that students experience in real
Students are required to perform com- life as well as the context in which the
plex tasks using what they have learned abilities were learned.

Summative Assessment: V I G N E T T E
Student Product Development Portfolio
Assessment Purpose
The purpose of this summative assessment is to identify cumulative student
understanding and abilities related to design and the design process based
on a collection of student work presented in a portfolio.
Description
Audience for Assessment Data
This summative
As this assessment is summative, the data collected will be available to
assessment provides
students, parents, and the teacher.
information on the level
STL Standards Assessed of technological literacy
attained by students.
Standard 8, Benchmarks H, I, J, K Using student portfolios,
Standard 11, Benchmarks M, N, O, P, Q, R students were given the
option to either improve
Grade Level Appropriateness an existing product or to
Grades 9–12 design and develop a new
product to meet a human
Note: While this vignette highlights a high school laboratory-classroom, student port-
folios may be used at any grade level for summative assessment. want or need. This
assignment could be
Students in Mr. Morales’ technology class were grouped in teams and adapted to a variety of
instructed to design and construct a product, either by improving an exist- laboratory-classroom
ing product or developing a new one. Prior to the initiation of this assess- settings. This vignette
ment, students were instructed on the concepts of design, product illustrates AETL Standard
development, entrepreneurship, and the designed world. A rubric was pro- A-3 C and Standard A-4
vided (see pp. 34–35) to allow students to monitor their own progress con- B, C, and E.
sistent with the criteria that would be used to assess final solutions.
Students were given the following sequential instructions: Adapted from a vignette written
by Mike Lindstrom and Joe
1. Develop a Group Proposal. Brainstorm to identify the product.
Nelson.
Determine the product’s design parameters (such as function/
purpose, size, cost, and eventual disposal). Identify features of the
product, staying within the design parameters. The group proposal
should include sketches and/or drawings and a formal market
survey that identifies market need. It may also include
advertisements.
2. Develop a Prototype of the New or Refined Product. Design plans
and procedures for construction or improvements of the product.
Follow proper construction techniques to produce a prototype of
the product. For example, write plans using appropriate design
symbols, follow safety guidelines, demonstrate safe use of equip-
ment, and demonstrate the ability to create technical instructions.
(instructions continued on p. 35)

Sample Feedback Rubrics for Assessing Student
Products and Portfolios
Assessment of Student Product

Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Above Average Excellent
(1 Point) (2 Points) (3 Points) (4 Points)
Identification ● Product and ● Product and ● Product and ● Product and
of product design parameters design parameters design parameters design parameters
identified. identified. identified. identified.
● Market research ● Market research ● Market research
establishes need. establishes need. establishes need.
● Evidence of ● Evidence of
research and research and
investigation. investigation.
● Minimum of 10
design ideas
brainstormed.
Identification ● Design proposed. ● Development or ● Development or ● Development or
of criteria ● No indication of a production plan production plan production plan
and con- development plan. outlined. outlined. outlined.
straints ● Evidence to indi- ● Evidence to indi-
cate consideration cate consideration
of resources. of resources.
● Trade-offs defined.
● Jigs and/or
fixtures proposed.
Use of proto- ● Observed labora- ● Observed labora- ● Observed labora- ● Observed labora-
typing/ tory safety. tory safety. tory safety. tory safety.
modeling ● Prototype or ● Prototype or ● Prototype or
model developed. model developed. model appropriate.
● Alternatives con- ● Multiple design
sidered but not iterations
reflected in modeled.
model. ● Reflection of
criteria and con-
straints apparent.
Evaluation of ● Evaluation of ● Evaluation of ● Evaluation of ● Evaluation of

design product. product. product. product includes
● No indication of ● Market need ● Market need critique of the
consideration of reflected in reflected in design process
market need. evaluation. evaluation. and the final prod-
● Design solution uct.
evaluated against ● Market need
criteria and reflected in
constraints. evaluation.
● Design solution
evaluated against
criteria and
constraints.
● Future design rec-
ommendations
proposed.
Prototype of ● Aesthetically ● Aesthetically ● Aesthetically ● Aesthetically
Product pleasing. pleasing. pleasing. pleasing.
● Demonstrates ● Demonstrates ● Demonstrates
creativity. creativity. creativity.
● Quality ● Quality
workmanship. workmanship.
● Satisfies market
need.

Assessment of Student Portfolio
Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Above Average Excellent
(1 Point) (2 Points) (3 Points) (4 Points)
Organization ● No sequence to ● Only beginning ● Entire design ● Entire design
presentation. and end stages of process detailed. process, market
product design ● Market research research, and con-
detailed. and concept cre- cept creation
ation not detailed.
presented.
Content ● Graphics and/or ● Graphics and/or ● Graphics and/or ● Graphics and/or
Relevancy illustrations high- illustrations high- illustrations illustrations
light final product. light final product. highlight product highlight product
● No reflection of ● Little reflection of development development
the development the development process. process.
process. process. ● Narratives high- ● Narratives high-
light product light product
development development
process. process.
● Reflection ques- ● Reflection ques-
tions addressed. tions addressed.
● Narratives high-
light environmen-
tal analysis.
● Multiple examples
(5+) provided.
Presentation ● No narrative pro- ● Minimal narrative ● Narratives indicate ● Narratives indicate
vided to highlight provided. student reflection. student reflection.
design process. ● Minimum of 4 ● Minimum of 7 ● Minimum of 10
graphics and/or graphics and/or graphics and/or
illustrations. illustrations. illustrations.
● Captions detail
illustrations.
● Aesthetically
pleasing.
3. Evaluate the Prototype. Upon completing construction of the

prototype, conduct an environmental analysis of the material list,
stating the impact and life of the product, recyclability of the
materials, and expected future impacts of the product’s use. Then
answer the following:
a. Does the product meet the design specifications?
b. Does the product fit the need of the market?
c. Do the instructions and plans provide complete information for
assembly of the product or modification of the existing
product?
d. Does the quality of the product meet or exceed market
expectations?
Rubrics guided both students and the teacher in consistently assessing stu-
dent work. The rubrics defined the assessment characteristics and quality of
work demanded by the final product and portfolio. The rubrics used a scale
of 1–4, with the highest quality work represented by a 4 and the lowest
quality acceptable work represented by a 1. Students who did not meet min-
imum expectations in a given category received no credit for that category.

S T AData N D A R D
A-5 Collection

will incorporate data collection for accountability,
professional development, and program
enhancement.
“Something
“S
omething important should be learned from every assessment situation, and
important should
the information gained should ultimately help improve learning” (NRC,
be learned from
every assessment 2001b, p. 8). Classroom and large-scale assessment tools and methods must
situation, and the be designed with the end use in mind. Large-scale assessment tools and methods are, by
information nature, not conducive to providing immediate feedback to students and teachers. To
gained should make them immediately useful for teachers and students, they should incorporate active
ultimately help learning techniques, such as meta-cognition (thinking about thinking), allowing large-
improve
scale assessment tools and methods to “provide positive direction for instruction”
learning.” (NRC,
2001b, p. 8)
(NRC, 2001b, p. 8). Assessment involves the process of collecting data, interpreting the
results, and reporting the results. The results can then be used to make decisions that
directly affect the understanding and development of technological literacy.
It must be acknowledged that assessment can be designed to provide data that are rele-
vant beyond the classroom. When assessment is based on STL, the data obtained enable
technological literacy comparisons within classrooms, schools, school districts, and
states/provinces/regions as well as across nations. The increasing demand for a techno-
logically literate populace will impact decisions on effectively incorporating the study of
technology into the educational system. Accurate assessment data can help guide this
process.
Correlates with Standards A-1–A-4: Student assessment that incorporates data collection for account-
ability, professional development, and program enhancement should be consistent with Standards A-1,
A-2, A-3, and A-4.
Correlates with Standard PD-3: For student assessment to incorporate data collection for accountability,
professional development, and program enhancement, teachers must be prepared to design and eval-
uate curricula and programs that enable all students to attain technological literacy.
Correlates with Standard PD-7: Student assessment data should be used by professional development
providers who plan, implement, and evaluate the pre-service and in-service education of teachers.
Correlates with Standards P-1–P-5: Student assessment data should be used in conjunction with
Standards P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, and P-5 to guide program enhancement decisions.

S T A N D A R D
A-5 Data
Collection

A. Maintain data collection for B. Use student assessment results
accountability. Assessment acknowl- to help guide professional develop-
edges the rights of students, parents, ment decisions. Student assessment
and other interested parties to know results are used to indicate areas in which
how well students are performing. professional development is needed. The
Assessment data provide information need for both pre-service and in-service of
about student ideas and misconcep- teachers to align course content, curric-
tions, not just a listing of grades from ula, instruction, and student assessment is
quizzes and tests. That is, assessment discussed in more detail in chapter 4,
data reflect student learning, which per- “Professional Development Standards.”
mits the data to be used moment-by-
C. Use student assessment results to
moment in the laboratory-classroom,
help guide program enhancement
affecting instructional decisions.
decisions. Just as programs, curricula,
Similarly, assessment data are used in
and instruction impact assessment in a
short-range planning to adjust instruc-
top-down implementation approach,
tion to the needs of students. Long-
assessment impacts instruction, curricula,
range planning uses assessment data to
and programs in a bottom-up, systemic
ensure that every student learns impor-
fashion, inspiring revision and refine-
tant technological material to enhance
ment as appropriate. The need for pro-
the development of technological
gram coherency is discussed in more
literacy.
detail in chapter 5, “Program Standards.”

C H A P T E R
T
he standards in this chapter are intended
for use by professional development
providers and by local, district,
state/provincial/regional, and national/federal
4
entities to ensure effective and continuous pre-
service and in-service education for technology
teachers and other content area teachers. These
professional development standards are aligned
with Standards for Technological Literacy: Content
for the Study of Technology (STL) (ITEA, 2000a).
They are developed to be implemented in con-
junction with STL as well as with the student
assessment and program standards included in
Program Standards (AETL). Therefore, these stan-
dards are of optimal use when curricula and
instruction used in professional development have
incorporated the concepts and principles identi-
fied in STL.
These professional development standards are
based on input from professional development
providers, including teacher educators, supervi-
sors, and administrators. The standards also
reflect attributes of effective professional develop-
ment such as those described in Designing
Professional Development for Teachers of Science
and Mathematics (Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love,
& Stiles, 1998):
Effective professional development experi-
ences foster collegiality and collaboration;
promote experimentation and risk taking;
draw their content from available knowledge
bases; involve participants in decisions about
as many aspects of the professional develop-
ment experience as possible; provide time to
participate, reflect on, and practice what is
learned; provide leadership and sustained sup-
port; supply appropriate rewards and incen-
tives; have designs that reflect knowledge
bases on learning and change; integrate indi-
vidual, school, and district goals; and inte-
grate both organizationally and instructionally
with other staff development and change
efforts. (p. 36)
Professional Research indicates that “professional development [should] help teachers understand
development (a) subject matter, (b) learners and learning, and (c) teaching methods” (Loucks-Horsley
providers consist & Matsumoto, 1999, p. 262). In addition to acquiring a knowledge base related to
of those who
teaching and learning technology, teachers should be taught in ways reflective of how
organize and/or
deliver pre-
they are being asked to teach (Sparks, 1997). Accordingly, Standards 1–6 outline the
service and in- content of professional development, and Standard 7 addresses the process of profes-
service teacher sional development.
education,
including teacher
These standards apply to the professional development of every teacher who edu-
educators, cates students about technology, not only technology teachers who operate primarily
supervisors, and within the technology laboratory-classroom and whose major responsibility is delivering
administrators. technology instruction. For example, these standards are eminently suitable for a social
studies teacher who is teaching the social influence of technology or the history of tech-
These nology. The ultimate goal is for all students to achieve technological literacy.
professional
development
standards apply
Definition of Professional Development
to the For the purposes of this document, professional development is defined as a continuous
professional
process of lifelong learning and growth that begins early in life, continues through the
development of
every teacher who undergraduate, pre-service experience, and extends through the in-service years.
educates students
about technology. Note: For the purposes of the professional development standards, the term teacher refers to both pre-
service and in-service teachers, unless otherwise indicated.
The Continuous Nature of Professional Development

Professional development of teachers is an ongoing process in which teachers acquire
increasingly comprehensive levels of content knowledge, pedagogical skills, and knowl-
edge of how students learn. This is consistent with the dynamic, evolving nature of
technology. The standards for professional development should be considered target
outcomes of the professional development continuum. These standards describe the
knowledge and abilities that
teachers should acquire as the
result of engaging in profes-
sional development.
Technology teachers take var-
ious pathways to get to the
classroom, including college-
or university-based teacher
preparation programs and a
variety of alternate routes.
Thus, it is not practical to
specify when and how these
target outcomes will be met
or achieved. Teachers who
have completed a traditional
40 CHAPTER FOUR/Professional Development Standards
technology teacher preparation program should attain all of these standards at a basic
level. Teachers of other content areas receiving instruction in disciplines other than tech-
nology may be more reliant upon in-service opportunities to attain the professional
development standards. Through continued professional development, technology
teachers and other content area teachers should achieve greater breadth and depth of
knowledge and competence related to technology over time.
The vision behind the professional development standards calls on teachers, administra-
tors, and policymakers to perpetuate interchange between elements of the program,
including content, professional development, curricula, instruction, student assessment,
and the learning environment, in all areas of learning. The standards and guidelines in
chapters 3, 4, and 5 of AETL are overlapping in nature to facilitate such interchange.
Audiences for “Professional Development Standards”

Primary audience:
Professional Development Providers (including Teacher Educators, Supervisors,
and Administrators)
Teachers
Policymakers
Association Leaders
General Public
CHAPTER FOUR/Professional Development Standards 41

PD-1 with STL
Standard PD-1: Professional development will

provide teachers with knowledge, abilities, and
understanding consistent with Standards for
Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of
Technology (STL).
F
or teachers to be able to educate students about technology, they must be techno-
logically literate themselves. Therefore, technology teachers and other content
area teachers need to develop knowledge and abilities consistent with STL so they
can help students achieve technological literacy. Teachers must:
1. Know the implications of technology as the modification of the natural envi-

ronment to satisfy perceived human needs and wants.
2. Understand the nature of technology, the impact of technology on society, and
the basic concepts of design.
3. Be able to “do” technology, acquiring essential abilities for our technological
world.
4. Develop an awareness of the designed world in which we live.
Specific technologies are influenced by a variety of factors, including the needs of indi-
viduals, groups, and society as a whole; however, certain core concepts permeate all
technologies. These include systems, resources, requirements (criteria and constraints),
optimization and trade-offs, processes, and controls.
Correlates with Standard PD-2: Knowledge, abilities, and understanding consistent with STL are neces-
sary for teachers to have educational perspectives on students as learners of technology.
sary for teachers to design and evaluate technology curricula and programs.
sary for teachers to use instructional strategies that enhance technology teaching, student learning,
and student assessment.
sary for teachers to design and manage learning environments that promote technological literacy.
Correlates with Standard A-1: Teachers provided with knowledge, abilities, and understanding consistent
with STL will be able to assess student learning consistent with STL.
Correlates with Standard A-4: Teachers provided with knowledge, abilities, and understanding consistent
with STL will be able to assess student learning in a manner that reflects the practical contexts of tech-
nology, consistent with its nature.
Correlates with Standard P-1: Teachers provided with knowledge, abilities, and understanding consistent
with STL will be able to develop technology programs consistent with STL.
Refer to STL Standards 1-20: For teachers to facilitate student development of technological literacy, they
must be technologically literate themselves in accordance with the standards in STL.

S T A N D A R D
PD-1 Consistency
with STL
Guidelines for meeting Standard PD-1 require that

professional development providers consistently prepare
teachers to
A. Understand the nature of tech- society, commensurate with Standards
nology. Professional development 4–7 of STL. Teachers are able to explain
incorporates views about the nature of that while technology impacts society,
technology, commensurate with society has a major influence on technol-
Standards 1–3 of STL. Teachers learn ogy, and both technology and society
what technology is (i.e., both tangible affect the environment. Teachers realize
and intangible aspects) and how technol- how technology can both create and
ogy is important to daily life. Teachers solve problems. Teachers become aware
learn the characteristics, scope, and core of the major “eras” of technology, along
concepts of technology and understand with specific events and milestones that
how they permeate all technologies. helped develop the technological world
Teachers comprehend the integrative in which we live, and can articulate the
nature that links technology with sci- influence of technology on history.
ence, mathematics, engineering, and
C. Know the attributes of design.
other disciplines.
Professional development incorporates
B. Recognize the relationship problem solving through design, com-
between technology and society. mensurate with Standards 8–10 of STL.
Professional development exhibits the Teachers are acquainted with engineer-
relationship between technology and ing design and other types of problem

PD-1 with STL
solving, such as troubleshooting, research internalized by teachers, providing guid-

and development, invention and innova- ance for activities inside and outside the
tion, and experimentation. laboratory-classroom.
E. Develop proficiency in the
D. Develop abilities for a technolog- designed world. Professional develop-
ical world. Professional development ment encourages the utilization of design
reveals abilities for a technological world, principles, employment of evaluation
commensurate with Standards 11–13 of methods, interpretation of research, use
STL. Teachers gain knowledge and abili- of modeling techniques, and incorpora-
ties related to the attributes of design, tion of practices related to the designed
engineering, and other problem-solving world, commensurate with Standards
techniques and are able to apply their 14–20 of STL. Teachers investigate the
abilities in the laboratory-classroom ways our designed world utilizes
through a hands-on approach to technol- resources, materials, tools, machines,
ogy. Teachers develop abilities to use and people, information, energy, capital, and
maintain technological products and sys- time in the development of products and
tems outside the laboratory-classroom, in systems. Teachers recognize the need to
everyday life. Teachers are able to evalu- remain current with the changing roles
ate the impact of technological products of technology and develop abilities to
and systems on individuals, the environ- select, use, and maintain the technologies
ment, and society. The design process is included in the designed world.

S T A N D A R D
PD-2 Students as
Learners

provide teachers with educational perspectives on
students as learners of technology.
T
o effectively guide student learning, teachers must develop an understanding of
students and how they learn. Professional development providers should edu-
cate teachers to work with all students, regardless of abilities, interests, age lev-
els, or backgrounds. Teachers must work harmoniously with all students to establish
valuable bonds and motivate student interest in the study of technology and for learn-
ing in general. Teachers should be aware of student learning styles and recognize the
importance of providing varied learning opportunities to accommodate students as
learners. For example, while some students will understand material presented in a
visual manner, teachers need to acknowledge that other students are auditory learners
and will process verbal information more effectively. Teachers must be aware of the sig-
nificance of utilizing cognitive, psychomotor, and affective elements to develop techno-
logical literacy and support student understanding.
Correlates with Standard PD-1: Educational perspectives on students as learners of technology require
teachers to have knowledge, abilities, and understanding consistent with STL.
Correlates with Standard PD-3: Educational perspectives on students as learners of technology are nec-
essary for teachers to design and evaluate technology curricula and programs.
Correlates with Standard PD-4: Educational perspectives on students as learners of technology are nec-
essary for teachers to use instructional strategies that enhance technology teaching, student learn-
ing, and student assessment.
Correlates with Standard PD-5 Educational perspectives on students as learners of technology are neces-
sary for teachers to design and manage learning environments that promote technological literacy.
Correlates with Standard A-3: Teachers provided with educational perspectives on students as learners of
technology will be able to assess student learning in a manner that is systematic and derived from
research-based assessment principles.
Correlates with Standard P-2: Teachers provided with educational perspectives on students as learners of
technology will be able to implement technology programs that facilitate technological literacy for all
students.
Correlates with Standard P-4: Teachers provided with educational perspectives on students as learners of
technology will be able to create and manage learning environments that facilitate technological lit-
eracy for all students.

S T AStudents asN D A R D
PD-2 Learners

teachers to
A. Incorporate student commonality pared to incorporate varied technological
and diversity to enrich learning. activities, representative of practical expe-
Through professional development, riences, requiring students to think criti-
teachers learn the meaning of developing cally and make decisions.
the technological literacy of all students
and also understand how that goal is C. Assist students in becoming
achieved. Teachers recognize student sim- effective learners. Professional devel-
ilarities and differences, including inter- opment emphasizes the need to establish
ests, cultures, abilities, socio-economic and maintain productive student-teacher
backgrounds, and special needs. Teachers relationships to assist students in becom-
recognize that diversity can enrich the ing effective learners. Teachers develop
classroom and are prepared to positively strategies to support and encourage stu-
incorporate individual experiences into dent learning. Teachers gain abilities to
the learning environment. Teachers learn develop learning activities that appeal to
that students often have preconceptions student interests and challenge students
about the technological world and are to reflect on practical experiences.
educated to identify and correct miscon- Teachers develop strategies that require
ceptions as appropriate. students to transfer learning to different
situations that promote student creativity
B. Provide cognitive, psychomotor, and imagination.
and affective learning opportunities.
Teachers are prepared, through profes- D. Conduct and use research on how
sional development, to provide students students learn technology. Through
with opportunities to gain and demon- professional development, teachers
strate knowledge and abilities related to become aware of current research on stu-
technology that integrate understanding dents as learners. They understand the
(i.e., knowing + doing = understanding). difference between learning from a
Teachers learn how to integrate perspec- cognitive-based perspective and learning
tive, empathy, student self assessment, from a psychomotor-based perspective in
and student peer assessment with techno- attaining technological literacy. Teachers
logical activities. Teachers recognize that understand the need for additional
simulations or real applications require research on students as learners of tech-
students to demonstrate their knowledge nology and acquire abilities necessary to
and understanding. Teachers are pre- conduct educational research.

S T A N D A R D
PD-3 Curricula and
Programs

prepare teachers to design and evaluate technology
curricula and programs.
I
n many cases, teachers assume responsibility for fashioning content into the overall The study of
plan for instruction. The study of technology is relatively new to education, and all technology is
teachers should be educated in the process of interpreting STL and translating it relatively new to
education, and all
into curricula and programs. A curriculum delineates content for the classroom. It
teachers should
structures, organizes, balances, and presents the content to the students. The curriculum be educated in
provides plans for instruction through objectives, activities, lessons, units, courses of the process of
study, and student assessment methods. Lesson plans give the teacher a daily operational interpreting STL
structure in which to deliver content to students. and translating it
into curricula and
STL encompasses a broad scope of technology that cuts across artificial barriers of cate- programs.
gorization between technology and other school subjects, such as science, mathematics,
social studies, language arts, and other content areas. Teachers should be familiar with
Correlates with Standard PD-1: To design and evaluate technology curricula and programs, teachers must
have knowledge, abilities, and understanding consistent with STL.
Correlates with Standard PD-2: To design and evaluate technology curricula and programs, teachers must
have educational perspectives on students as learners of technology.
Correlates with Standard A-1: Teachers prepared to design and evaluate technology curricula and pro-
grams will be able to assess student learning consistent with STL.
grams will be able to match assessment to the intended purpose.
grams will be able to assess student learning in a manner that is systematic and derived from research-
based assessment principles.
grams will be able to assess student learning in a manner that reflects practical contexts consistent
with the nature of technology.
grams will be able to incorporate data collection for accountability, professional development, and pro-
gram enhancement.
Correlates with Standard P-1: Teachers prepared to design and evaluate technology curricula and pro-
grams will be able to develop technology programs consistent with STL.
grams will be able to implement technology programs that facilitate technological literacy for all stu-
dents.
grams will be able to evaluate technology programs to ensure and facilitate technological literacy for
all students.
grams will be able to create and manage learning environments that facilitate technological literacy
for all students.
grams will be able to provide management of technology programs.
Refer to STL Standards 1–20: Teachers should design and evaluate technology curricula and programs
based on the content in STL.

S T ACurricula and
N D A R D
PD-3 Programs
the content of STL and possess the abili- grams that facilitate the integrated vision
ties to develop curricula and programs of STL.
that allow students to study technology.
Teachers should be educated to imple-
The standards in STL are clarified and
ment programs in a manner that is con-
exemplified by benchmarks appropriate
sistent with STL. Implementation of
to specific grade levels (K–2, 3–5, 6–8,
program curricula incorporates content,
and 9–12). Reference is made in STL to
instruction, and student assessment.
the ongoing nature of technological liter-
Evaluation of programs should be ongo-
acy development beyond Grade 12, both
ing and reflect the content in STL and
in formal and informal settings.
AETL. Technology teachers and other
Attaining technological literacy must be
content area teachers should be prepared
ongoing throughout the student educa-
to evaluate programs and modify them as
tional experience. Teachers should be
necessary to ensure that all students
prepared to develop curricula and pro-
attain technological literacy.

S T A N D A R D
PD-3 Curricula and
Programs

teachers to
A. Design and evaluate curricula and programs that provide a continuity of
programs that enable all students to learning from Grades K–12 with connec-
attain technological literacy. tions to life beyond high school. In creat-
As a result of professional development, ing curricula, teachers develop abilities to
teachers learn to develop curricula and integrate technology content with tech-
programs that enable students to learn nological study at the elementary, mid-
from multiple (knowing and doing) per- dle, and high school levels, promoting
spectives. Teachers are prepared in the interest and motivation to all students,
use of the latest standards-based curricu- regardless of their experiences. Teachers
lum development methods. Professional learn to evaluate curricula and programs
development providers require teachers across grade levels.
to be familiar with “Program Standards”
(chapter 5) of AETL. Teachers recognize D. Design and evaluate curricula and
curricula and program evaluation as programs using multiple sources of
essential and develop strategies to con- information. Professional development
duct evaluations on a systematic basis. includes generating and evaluating cur-
Pre-service and in-service education pre- ricula and programs based upon multiple
pares teachers to develop and implement sources of information and research.
student assessment and use the results to Teachers learn to draw upon resources in
influence curricula (see chapter 3). STL as well as other sources dealing with
technology. Teachers recognize student
B. Design and evaluate curricula and
assessment results as a source for inform-
programs across disciplines.
ing decisions about curricula. Teachers
Professional development prepares teach-
become knowledgeable about standards
ers to fashion and evaluate curricula and
in other school subjects, including sci-
programs that are interdisciplinary. In
ence, mathematics, social studies, lan-
creating curricula, teachers adapt tech-
guage arts, and other content areas.
nology content to integrate it with other
Teachers learn collaborative strategies for
disciplines. For example, themes or units
working with other teachers across disci-
of study in space colonization, the indus-
plines, providing a rich resource for
trial revolution, or technological influ-
developing and evaluating curricula.
ences on the Civil War provide a rich
Teachers are prepared to obtain input
blend of learning for students in the
from stakeholders within the community
study of technology. Teachers learn
and school to assist in developing curric-
strategies for conducting evaluations
ula and programs, including other teach-
across content areas when assessing tech-
ers within the department, other teachers
nological literacy.
within the school, administrators, school
C. Design and evaluate curricula and leaders, professional development
programs across grade levels. providers, business and industry leaders,
Professional development prepares teach- engineers, technologists, scientists, and
ers to fashion and evaluate curricula and others.
V I G N E T T E Modeling Professional Practice
Teacher candidates in a Teaching Transportation Technology class at a local
university were divided into groups. Each group represented a company that
designed and sold a particular transportation product. For example, one
group received the following information:
You are members of the R&D team at XYZ Corporation, a company that builds
motorized scooters. The market for your product recently expanded due to
Description new innovations developed by your competitors. Unfortunately, your company
This professional was in such a rush to capture part of the expanded market that it developed
and sold a new scooter model without going through the usual R&D phase of
development activity
the development cycle. It now appears that this was a mistake. The company
develops teacher has received thousands of complaints, and the product has a number of flaws
knowledge and involving safety, durability, and convenience. You must identify the design
abilities to interpret flaws and come up with a plan to fix them.
STL and translate its
Teacher candidates were provided with specifications for the product (size,
content into curricula
weight, etc.). Teacher candidates were instructed to keep a journal, as the
by modeling teaching
activity would be assessed based on the design and problem-solving process
practices that tech-

evidenced by journal entries. Each group was provided with time to research
nology teachers are
its product and record individual findings in journals. The groups were then
expected to use in
given the following instructions:
their laboratory-
classrooms. Teacher Step 1. Draw a picture of the product in your individual journal.
candidates were
instructed to engage in Step 2. As a group, choose one picture to represent the product.
a group research and
development activity, Step 3. Identify the innovations to the product that make it new and
using individual exciting, while ensuring its safety, durability, and
journals to record their convenience.
progress. At the end of
Step 4. As a group, identify at least three definite design flaws, and
the activity, teacher
come up with a checklist of additional items you need to
candidates discussed
research to ensure that your company is marketing a quality
the application of the
product.
activity to their future
laboratory-classrooms. Step 5. Present your product to the class. The class will identify the
This vignette illu- product’s design flaws. These will form the basis for your
strates AETL Standard “consumer complaints.”
PD-1 C, D, and E;
Standard PD-3 A; and
Standard PD-7 B. This
vignette correlates
with AETL Standard P-1
A and E; Standard P-2
C; and Standard P-3 F.
Adapted from a vignette written

by Michael Daugherty.

Step 6. Write individual journal entries that explore how the design
flaws your team identified in Step 4 coincided with the design
flaws the class identified in Step 5. Were they the same? Why
or why not? If there were differences, why didn’t your team
catch them? What is the difference between the consumer’s
point of view and the corporation’s point of view?
Step 7. As a group, solve the design problems.
Step 8. As a group, report back to the class. Record their reactions as

notes in your journals.
Step 9. Compare notes with your group. Are the problems solved?
Why or why not? If not, work with your group to solve the
problems.
Step 10. Individually write a memorandum in your journal to the head

of your department detailing the problems with the product
and the process your group went through to solve the prob-
lems. Make a recommendation about the next step your com-
pany should take.
At the conclusion of the activity, the class engaged in discussion to high-

light the appropriateness of the learning activity. Topics of discussion
included: adaptation of the activity to other content areas or grade levels;
coordination with Standards for Technological Literacy; opportunities for
engagement in cognitive, psychomotor, and affective learning; appropriate
student assessment tools and methods; and fashioning activities and
lessons into curricula. Teacher candidates were instructed to design a
standards-based unit of study that would require elementary students to
demonstrate cognitive, psychomotor, and affective knowledge and abilities
related to technology. Both formative and summative assessment were to be
evident in the content, curricula, and instruction.

S T AInstructional
N D A R D
PD-4 Strategies

prepare teachers to use instructional strategies that
enhance technology teaching, student learning, and
student assessment.
T
eachers should be prepared to use a variety of instructional strategies in a man-
ner that ensures maximum learning within the laboratory-classroom. Examples
include guided discovery, demonstrations, lectures, field trips, simulations,
modeling, and others. Professional development should address instructional strategies
that are based on learning theory, which focuses on understanding how learning occurs,
how it is facilitated, and the content of the curriculum. Teachers should recognize that
the goal of instruction is to enhance student learning. Further, teachers must recognize
student assessment as another opportunity to enhance and enrich the educational expe-
rience for all students. That is, teachers need to learn how assessment is both a learning
experience for students and a resource for making instruction more effective.
Correlates with Standard PD-1: To use instructional strategies that enhance technology teaching, student
learning, and student assessment, teachers must have knowledge, abilities, and understanding con-
sistent with STL.
Correlates with Standard PD-2: To use instructional strategies that enhance technology teaching, student
learning, and student assessment, teachers must have educational perspectives on students as learn-
ers of technology.
Correlates with Standard P-2: Teachers prepared to use instructional strategies that enhance technology
teaching, student learning, and student assessment will be able to implement technology programs
that facilitate technological literacy for all students.
Refer to STL Standards 1–20: Teachers should present the content identified in STL in a manner that
allows students to experience technology through design, engineering design, and problem solving
(troubleshooting, research and development, invention and innovation, and experimentation).

S T A N D A R D
PD-4 Instructional
Strategies

teachers to
A. Coordinate instructional strate- method for enhancing learning and
gies with curricula. Professional devel- modifying instruction. Teachers are
opment addresses coordinating acquainted with formative (ongoing)
instruction with curricula so that techno- assessment to make student thinking and
logical content is delivered effectively to doing visible, enabling teachers, students,
maximize student learning. Teachers and parents to understand student per-
develop strategies for ensuring that ceptions and thinking. Teachers distin-
instruction is based on a philosophy of guish between formative and summative
teaching rooted in STL and develop the (occurring at the end) assessment, recog-
knowledge and abilities to deliver nizing which is appropriate to the learn-
instruction that is reflective of STL ing situation.
content.
Teachers are prepared to develop assess-
B. Incorporate educational (instruc- ment tools and methods that are student-
tional) technology. Professional devel- oriented and learner-friendly. Teachers
opment trains teachers in the proper and understand the need for assessment to
effective use of educational technology to provide students with opportunities to
enhance student learning. Teachers improve and revise their work and are
develop abilities to use technological required to familiarize themselves with
developments, such as computers, audio- “Student Assessment Standards” (chapter
visual equipment, and mass media, as 3) of AETL. Teachers view assessment as
tools for enhancing and optimizing the a strategy for helping students monitor
learning environment to assist student their own progress (through self assess-
development of technological literacy. ment or peer assessment) and attain tech-
nological literacy. Teachers learn to utilize
C. Utilize student assessment.
student assessment to inform instruction
Professional development addresses
and make positive change to the class-
assessment as an instructional strategy.
room, to student learning experiences,
Teachers are educated on building stu-
and to programs.
dent assessment into teaching as a

V I G N E T T E K–12 Curriculum Integration Workshop
A professional development four-day workshop was planned for K–12 teach-
ers that focused on integrating mathematics, science, and technology cur-
ricula with STL. Three national consultants were hired to conduct the
workshop, with breakout sessions each day for the K–5, 6–8, and 9–12
grade levels. This workshop was used to develop partnerships among con-
tent areas and enhance student learning through integrated hands-on
Description projects, curricular materials, and thematic units. The workshop consisted of
18 teams, and each team consisted of 4 teachers. The first day of the work-
This workshop is shop was used to explain the importance of technological literacy and how
designed to build it can be achieved through interdisciplinary curricula, activities, and part-
cross-disciplinary nerships. To stress the importance of collaboration and cooperation, team-
partnerships for building exercises were used with the group to build and enhance skills in
planning and creating communications, work processes, team development, and leadership.
K–12 curricula that
Each day during the remainder of the workshop, the teams participated in
integrate mathematics,
breakout sessions led by each of the consultants. The Grades 6–8 and 9–12
science, and teams were introduced to interdisciplinary curricular materials and partici-
technology curricula pated in activities that could be used in the classroom. The teachers dis-
with STL. Curricula cussed how each person on the team could effectively address components
development and of an activity and related materials to create an integrated unit among sev-
implementation used eral disciplines. Once each team had completed the activity and discussion,
long-range goals that ideas were shared with the other groups to provide more opportunities for
included multiple collaboration.
school subjects from The elementary (Grades K–5) breakout sessions were conducted in a similar
kindergarten through manner but focused more on thematic units to help teachers understand
the twelfth grade. This how to incorporate the study of technology without adding an additional
vignette illustrates subject. Consultants explained that thematic units could be used to teach
AETL Standard PD-3 A, all subjects, using technology activities to link concepts. Teams also pre-
B, C and D and pared classroom materials, project starter kits, and samples that could be
Standard PD-7 B and F. used in their classrooms once they returned to their schools.
This vignette correlates Throughout each day of the workshop, teams were given opportunities to
with AETL Standard P-1 see demonstrations of different activities and samples of curricular materials
A, B, C, and D and from each grade level. These demonstrations helped the teams understand
Standard P-2 C. the importance of an articulated curriculum for technology education and
the effectiveness of interdisciplinary units. The participants were also given
Adapted from a vignette written grade level appropriate curricular guides that were developed by the ITEA’s
by James Boe. Center to Advance the Teaching of Technology and Science (CATTS). The cur-
ricular guides were a helpful resource for activities and materials that were
presented during the workshop.
The last day of the workshop was dedicated to showing group members how
to interpret the standards and benchmarks in STL and how to document
them in the development of unit plans. Teams also developed implementa-
tion plans to use once they returned to their schools. Strategies for imple-
mentation were provided during the workshop as suggestions, but each

team created a plan that would best fit the strategic plan and curricular
policies of their districts.
At the end of the four-day workshop, each participant was given a certifi-
cate of completion and awarded two graduate credits from the local univer-
sity. To continue effective communication between all participants, an
attendance list was distributed that included phone numbers, school
addresses, and e-mail addresses for each person. This helped build a
resource network between teams, participating schools, and the hired con-
sultants for future contacts and questions about curricular development.

S T ALearning N D A R D
PD-5 Environments

prepare teachers to design and manage learning
environments that promote technological literacy.
T
he learning environment is a major factor in maximizing learning for all stu-
dents. Teachers must be prepared to design and manage laboratory-classrooms
that are learner-centered and adaptable for hands-on experiences. Teachers
should be educated to consider the prior knowledge and abilities of learners so they can
develop learning environments that are appealing to students and provide a positive
space for developing technological literacy. Professional development should prepare
teachers to design and manage learning environments that attend to the technological
content being taught, the ability levels of the learners, and the reasons for teaching the
selected content. Teachers should consider student assessment in the design and man-
agement of learning environments. Attention to such details will promote an atmos-
phere conducive to student learning and teacher instruction.
Correlates with Standard PD-1: To design and manage learning environments that promote technological
literacy, teachers must possess knowledge, abilities, and understanding consistent with STL.
Correlates with Standard PD-2: To design and manage learning environments that promote technological
literacy, teachers must possess educational perspectives on students as learners of technology.
Correlates with Standard P-4: Teachers prepared to design and manage learning environments that pro-
mote technological literacy will be able to create and manage learning environments that facilitate
technological literacy for all students.
Refer to STL Standards 1–20: Teachers should design learning environments that support the develop-
ment of knowledge and abilities in STL.

S T A N D A R D
PD-5 Learning
Environments

teachers to
A. Design and manage learning encourage, motivate, and support stu-
environments that operate with suf- dents as they learn technology. Teachers
ficient resources. Professional devel- are prepared to incorporate hands-on
opment incorporates the creation of learning that stimulates and reinforces
resource-rich learning environments that cognition. Teachers are prepared to
provide varied educational experiences encourage student innovation and inven-
for students. Teachers learn to draw upon tion as part of developing technological
resources in the community, materials literacy. Design and problem solving are
within the school, and donations from presented as key activities and processes
business and industry. Teachers recognize in the study of technology. Teachers
that recyclable materials may be collected learn how to design and manage learning
from students and faculty or solicited environments that allow students to be
from local contributors. Teachers under- creatively engaged in technological
stand that activities can be enhanced activity.
through technological simulations using
C. Design and manage learning envi-
tabletop equipment and do not always
ronments that accommodate student
require large-scale, expensive, industrial
commonality and diversity.
equipment.
Professional development prepares teach-
B. Design and manage learning envi- ers to create learning environments that
ronments that encourage, motivate, support the needs of all students.
and support student learning of Teachers learn to consider student simi-
technology. Professional development larities and differences, including inter-
prepares teachers with strategies to ests, cultures, abilities, socio-economic

PD-5 Environments
backgrounds, and special needs. Teachers equipment maintenance to ensure proper

are taught to design learning environ- functioning, in accordance with local,
ments that are barrier-free and accom- district, state/provincial/regional, and
modating to all students. national/federal regulations. Teachers rec-
ognize the importance of selecting mate-
D. Design and manage learning
rials and equipment that are appropriate
environments that reinforce student
to the developmental abilities of the
learning and teacher instruction.
learners.
Through professional development,
teachers are prepared to design and man-
F. Design and manage learning envi-
age learning environments that establish
ronments that are adaptable. As a
high expectations for technological learn-
result of professional development,
ing and, consequently, establish high
teachers learn to create learning environ-
expectations for teaching. Teachers learn
ments that are flexible and equipped with
to devise learning environments that
machines, tools, and materials reflective
appropriately advance individual student
of the technological content. Teachers
development of technological literacy.
recognize that flexible environments
E. Design and manage learning envi- facilitate change as demanded by our

ronments that are safe, appropri- technological world and enable students
ately designed, and well maintained. to transfer what they have learned from
Professional development stresses the one situation into others. Teachers are
importance of safe learning environ- educated to be resourceful in making the
ments. Teachers are taught to design and learning environment adaptable to the
manage barrier-free laboratory- content being taught. Teachers know
classrooms that enable all students to how to implement and use educational
learn about technology in a safe manner. (instructional) technology to enhance the
Teachers learn the importance of regular learning environment.

S T A N D A R D
PD-6 Continued
Professional Growth

prepare teachers to be responsible for their own
continued professional growth.
P
re-service and in-service professional development experiences should prepare
teachers to engage in comprehensive and sustained personal professional growth.
The most important component affecting the quality of any technology program
is the teacher. The faculty in technology programs should be both professionally and
technologically prepared to provide students with quality and comprehensive technol-
ogy learning.
Professional organizations recognize the achievements and contributions of exemplary The most
teachers and programs. In some cases, it may be possible for teachers to initiate political important
efforts that bring about positive change or influence policy in technology through pro- component
affecting the
fessional organizations. To remain informed teachers should attend professional confer-
quality of any
ences at the local, district, state/provincial/regional, national/federal, and international technology
levels, where they network with other teachers to promote the study of technology. program is the
teacher.
Promoting the study of technology and technology programs is essential, because there
is widespread misunderstanding about what the field encompasses. Everyone within the
school and the community should be provided with a clear understanding of the impor-
tance of technological literacy. This can be accomplished through a planned marketing
initiative conducted by teachers and administrators.
Correlates with Standard PD-1: Teachers prepared to be responsible for their own professional growth will
ensure that they possess knowledge, abilities, and understanding consistent with STL.
ensure that they possess educational perspectives on students as learners of technology.
ensure that they possess knowledge and abilities to design and evaluate technology curricula and pro-
grams.
ensure that they possess knowledge and abilities to use instructional strategies that enhance tech-
nology teaching, student learning, and student assessment.
ensure that they possess knowledge and abilities to design and manage learning environments that
promote technological literacy.

S T AContinuedN D A R D
PD-6 Professional Growth

teachers to
A. Assume commitment to self addresses the need for teachers to display
assessment and responsibility for ethical behavior. Teachers learn to be
continuous professional growth. role models and are expected to lead stu-
Professional development encourages dents by example, exhibiting ethical
teacher self assessment. Teachers are behavior at all times. This extends out-
further encouraged to establish a profes- side the confines of the educational sys-
sional development plan that incorpo- tem, as teachers interact with and affect
rates maintaining and expanding their students through their community
professional and technological abilities. presence.
Professional development requires teach-
C. Facilitate collaboration with
ers to identify goals that guide profes-
others. Professional development
sionals throughout their careers.
emphasizes the significance of collabora-
B. Establish a personal commitment tion. Teachers develop abilities to effec-

to ethical behavior within the educa- tively collaborate with their peers.
tional environment as well as in pri- Teachers learn that collaboration is an
vate life. Professional development opportunity to share best practices of

S T A N D A R D
PD-6 Continued
Professional Growth
what is working and what is not working E. Serve as advisors for technology
in the laboratory-classroom. Teachers student organizations. Professional
learn teamwork strategies that enable development familiarizes teachers with
them to receive ideas from others as well technology student organizations, such as
as to share their ideas with others. the Technology Student Association
Professional development offers examples (TSA) and the Junior Engineering
of collaboration to teachers, including Technical Society (JETS). Teachers learn
observing other teachers in action and how to develop student leadership abili-
participating in discussion forums on ties, encourage and promote student
technology to receive peer input and responsibilities, extend student techno-
advice. Teachers learn that serving as logical abilities, and develop positive
active members of the school instruc- social interaction among students
tional staff, sharing in decision-making through student organizations.
processes, and participating in technol-
ogy program advancement are opportu- F. Provide leadership in education.
nities for collaboration. Teachers are Professional development requires that
prepared to work with guidance coun- teachers obtain leadership skills to
selors and other personnel, advising them inform others about the study of tech-
about the importance of technological nology within the school and commu-
literacy to students. nity. Teachers are prepared to participate
in school, community, and political
D. Participate in professional orga-
efforts to create positive change in
nizations. Professional development
technology programs. Teachers learn
addresses time and resource management
strategies for promoting the study of
issues to prepare teachers for active mem-
technology as well as for recruiting stu-
bership in professional organizations
dents to pursue careers in technology
related to technology at the local, dis-
teaching.
trict, state/provincial/regional, national/
federal, and international levels.

S T APre-ServiceNand D A R D
PD-7 In-Service
Standard PD-7: Professional development providers

will plan, implement, and evaluate the pre-service
and in-service education of teachers.
P
rofessional growth is essential, as our technological world is ever-changing.
Responsibility for the initial stage of pre-service education rests with colleges and
universities. This experience must mesh with what is happening in laboratory-
classrooms. The interface between college and the classroom is the clinical experience
with which many teachers are involved from early in their teacher preparation programs
through graduation.
After graduation, responsibility for continuous professional development shifts from the
campus to the school district in which the teacher is employed, which may ultimately
be a college or university. Every school district, college, and university must be responsi-
ble for providing professional development opportunities to technology teachers and
other content area teachers to prepare them to deliver content in the study of technol-
ogy. Such opportunities should include both collaboration with others and formal pro-
fessional development activities. Professional development for technology teachers and

other content area teachers is a continuous, lifelong learning process.
Professional development planning, implementation, and evaluation guides and informs
the pre-service and in-service education of teachers. Accordingly, professional develop-
ment provides opportunities for teachers to build their knowledge and skills, guides
teachers in developing instructional strategies, and is continuously evaluated and refined
to ensure positive impact on teacher effectiveness, student learning, leadership, and the
school community (Loucks-Horsley et al., 1998).
Correlates with Standard PD-1: Professional development is planned, implemented, and evaluated to
ensure that teachers are provided with knowledge, abilities, and understanding consistent with STL.
ensure that teachers are provided educational perspectives on students as learners of technology.
ensure that teachers are prepared to design and evaluate technology curricula and programs.
ensure that teachers are prepared to use instructional strategies that enhance technology teaching,
student learning, and student assessment.
ensure that teachers are prepared to design and manage learning environments that promote techno-
logical literacy.
ensure that teachers are prepared to be responsible for their own continued professional growth.
Correlates with Standard A-5: Professional development should incorporate student assessment results to
guide professional development decisions.

S T A N D A R D
PD-7 Pre-Service and
In-Service

professional development providers consistently
A. Plan pre-service and in-service centered. Professional development pro-
education for teachers. Professional vides opportunities to learn, practice,
development providers coordinate the and reflect. Professional development
goals, purposes, content, and context of providers incorporate opportunities to
pre-service and in-service education. experience technology through design,
Decision making related to professional problem solving, and invention.
development is ongoing, and attention is Professional development allows for prac-
given to the context in which profes- tice in the classroom, with opportunities
sional development will occur. Effective for teachers to receive feedback and addi-
strategies are considered for implement- tional practice.
ing the professional development pro-
C. Evaluate professional develop-
gram. A variety of approaches to
ment to assure that the needs of
professional development are planned,
teachers are being met. Professional
including workshops, institutes, curricula
development providers judge the effec-
development, study groups, case discus-
tiveness of individual educational oppor-
sions, and immersion in technology.
tunities as well as the effectiveness of the
Professional development providers cre-
overall professional development pro-
ate opportunities for teachers to collabo-
gram. Professional development
rate with other technology professionals,
providers examine the goals and purposes
both within and outside the field of edu-
of their instruction to assure that those
cation. College and university programs
goals are being met. Program refinement
support teacher candidate involvement in
and revision occurs systematically. Input
collegiate organizations such as the
is sought from teachers, other adminis-
Technology Education Collegiate Associ-
trators, and policymakers to assure effec-
ation (TECA). Teachers are involved in
tive professional development. Short-
the planning of professional develop-
and long-range planning decisions are
ment, and the goal of positively influenc-
shared with teachers and other adminis-
ing student learning is reflected in all
trators as appropriate. Teachers are held
activities. Professional development
accountable for their learning.
providers coordinate activities to ensure
that teacher learning is comprehensive D. Support technology teacher
and continuous. preparation programs that are con-
sistent with state/provincial/
B. Model teaching practices that regional and national/federal accred-
teachers will be expected to use in iting guidelines. Professional develop-
their laboratory-classrooms. ment providers ensure that technology
Professional development providers teacher preparation programs at colleges
model teaching practices consistent with and universities are accredited using a
the ways teachers will be expected to thorough process that involves state/
teach. Professional development is provincial/regional and national/federal
learner-centered, knowledge-centered, accrediting guidelines. All technology
assessment-centered, and community- teacher preparation programs conduct
S T APre-ServiceNand D A R D
PD-7 In-Service
self-evaluation processes for national/ room teachers are provided time to

federal accreditation. Preparatory pro- attend local, district, state/provincial/
grams for elementary teachers and teach- regional, national/federal, and interna-
ers of other content areas require tional conferences to further develop
coursework in the study of technology. their teaching expertise.
E. Provide teacher preparation pro- G. Obtain regular funding for in-
grams, leading to licensure, that are service professional development
consistent with AETL and STL. opportunities. Professional develop-
Professional development providers in ment providers obtain funding on a regu-
college and university teacher prepara- lar basis from localities, districts, states/
tion programs base their curricula on provinces/regions, universities, and pro-
AETL. The content taught in the teacher fessional organizations. This funding is
preparation program in both the knowl- used to provide in-service on the study of
edge and ability areas is based on STL. technology to both technology teachers
Technology teacher preparation pro- and other content area teachers. Funds
grams require methods and strategies for are allocated to provide pay for substitute
integrating and connecting technology teachers as well as professional leave time
courses of study with pedagogy courses for classroom teachers. Alternatives to this
of study and clinical experiences at the may include full department engagement,
baccalaureate degree level. For faculty cross-curricular engagement, rotational
who plan and conduct professional engagement, or administrative/faculty
development at the teacher preparation teams. Funds are also provided for travel,
level, there is continual evaluation of the registration fees, lodging, and meals for
undergraduate and graduate degree pro- teachers attending these activities.
grams to assure quality programs that Funding is provided to support the alter-
assist teachers in implementing STL. nate licensure of technology teachers by
states/provinces/regions. Funds are also
F. Provide in-service activities to
available to purchase philosophical, cur-
enhance teacher understanding of
ricular, and instructional materials about
technological content, instruction,
technological literacy.
and assessment. Professional develop-
ment providers orchestrate and imple- H. Create and implement mentoring
ment a formal program of in-service activities at both in-service and pre-
activities for classroom teachers at school service levels. Professional develop-
and school district levels. The profes- ment providers establish and utilize
sional development program informs and mentoring programs to assist teachers.
educates existing Mentoring opportunities pair teacher can-
teachers on STL and didates, new teachers, and recertified
AETL. Workshops teachers with experienced teachers, or
are conducted on with teachers in other content areas, to
standards-based con- facilitate collaboration. A designated
tent, student assess- mentor provides assistance to new teach-
ment, and program ers and recertified teachers during the first
enhancement. three years following certification or
Additionally, class- recertification.
Facilitating Collaboration V I G N E T T E
School administrators interested in enhancing their cross-curricular technol-
ogy program (see glossary for further elaboration on cross-curricular technol-
ogy program) invited teachers to attend a case discussion to investigate
collaboration as a possible technique for increasing awareness of the tech-
nology program and promoting it to the community. The purpose of the case
discussion was made clear to participants. Their goal was to develop an
action plan to facilitate collaboration among elementary, middle, and high Description
school teachers and local technology professionals. Participants were pro-
This case discussion
vided the following example, detailing an online collaboration project com-
was organized by
pleted by three geographically distant schools to design and construct 3-D
plastic puzzles:
administrators
interested in
This online collaboration was successfully completed between schools in New promoting programs
York, Nevada, and California. The student participants were technology stu-
for the study of
dents in Grades 7–12. Students from the three states combined their efforts
and resources to design and manufacture 3-D puzzles using computer aided technology. Teachers
design (CAD) (Nevada), computer numerical control (CNC) (California), and were involved in
computer graphics (New York). planning a
Through participation in this multi-school project, students developed skills
collaborative effort
in mathematics, science, technology, and language arts. In the beginning, among elementary,
students introduced themselves by sending letters and photos. Then a stu- middle, and high
dent-developed website was established, complete with message board and school teachers and
chat room, where students from the three schools could post their efforts on local technology
the shared project. professionals. An
In the course of this project, students developed abilities to communicate example of a multi-
electronically, share resources, and develop skills in problem solving and criti- school collaboration
cal analysis, in accord with STL. Students documented project progress on the project was provided.
website. This project engaged students in a practical experience while encour-
This vignette
aging the integration of multiple subjects and application of integrated
knowledge and processes. The project promoted integrated learning and fos-
illustrates AETL
tered equal participation. The electronic environment was inviting to all par- Standard PD-6 A and C
ticipants, inclusive of diversity among students. This was a learner-focused and Standard PD-7 A
project with clear connectivity between expectations, standards, processes, and F. This vignette
and assessment. This project provided experience in planning, research, correlates with AETL
development, testing, critiquing, presentation, and reflection. The experi- Standard P-1 C, D, J,
ences were enhanced with the application of technology and electronic
and K and Standard P-5
documentation.
A, C, D, and F.
Students faced and overcame many practical challenges during the course of
the project. For example, during the development of the first student-
designed 3-D puzzle, the Nevada school was told by the California school that by Donna Matteson.
they purchased 1/8″ Plexiglas™ for the puzzles. With that information, the
puzzles were designed with 1/8″ slots. The CAD data were then sent to
California, and the pieces were cut out using a laser CNC. The puzzles arrived
in New York with slots that were so large the puzzle would not stay together
when assembled. When New York used a digital caliper on the plastic, it
measured 0.100″ (not 0.125″) in thickness. This information was communi-
cated to Nevada, and the students began problem solving. They decided to

scale the entire puzzle from 1″ to 0.8″, which solved the problem of having to
resize all of the slots on each of the 25 puzzle parts. Communication was the
key to the success of this project. E-mail capability overcame the time differ-
ence between the East and West Coasts.
The outcome of this project was that the educational experience was
enhanced through the collaborative effort and the application of current
technology to a practical project. At the conclusion of the project, all stu-
dents participated in a live videoconference, where they discussed the experi-
ence. They discussed the skills in communication, problem solving, and
critical analysis they had developed through the project. Educational out-
comes included, but were not limited to, the following: students gained expe-
rience in geometry, mathematical coordinates, physics, research, writing,
design, graphics, communications, and manufacturing.
This was an educationally sound and rewarding experience for both teachers
and students. We hope it will serve as a model to inspire others. Any school
could model this effort. The first step would be to identify teachers interested
in participating in a shared project. The NY/NV/CA network was established at
an ITEA conference. However, contacts could be made through teacher centers
as well as local, state, or national organizations. This project is not limited to
subject area or grade level. This project received recognition as a runner up in

the 2001 National Semi-Conductor Innovators Award for programs utilizing
the Internet to pursue creative endeavours. The website address is available
for review at http://www.bnet.org/hvsd/manufacturing.
Participants were given ten minutes to read and reflect on the example.
They were instructed to brainstorm a list of steps to foster the collabora-
tion. Following the ten-minute time period, the action plan development
process was initiated. Administrators used a list of guidelines to engage
teachers in discussion and incorporate the ideas that were generated during
the brainstorming session. The discussion was conducted in an organized
manner so that all teachers were provided ample time to ask questions and
voice opinions and concerns. To create an action plan, administrators
sought teacher input regarding the following:
Define the vision for the collaborative effort. Administrators felt
that the collaborative effort would enhance teacher knowledge and
abilities by providing opportunities for teachers to interact with
technology professionals from local businesses and industries. It
was also viewed as an opportunity for teachers to work together in
and out of their respective disciplines and grade levels. Student
learning could be enhanced if partnerships were developed and
opportunities were provided to students within and outside their
respective classrooms. Administrators were interested in learning
teacher perspectives on the significance of such collaboration.
Outline the collaborative effort. Clear identification of what the
collaborative effort would be within the school district was detailed
with input from the teachers and administrators.
Build support for the collaborative effort. Administrators sought
teacher expertise in determining most effective strategies for
receiving “buy in” from school faculty and the community.
Identify a “champion” for the collaborative effort.
Administrators felt it was important to identify a “champion” or
“cheerleader” for the effort to increase faculty and community
interest. Advice from teachers was sought to determine appropriate
person(s) or group(s).
Create a collaborative team. Advice regarding appropriate individ-
uals to serve on a collaborative team was gathered from teachers.
Consideration was given to teacher expertise, including content
area and grade level to ensure diverse representation.
Acquire administrative support. Methods for ensuring support
from administration at all levels (school, district, community) were
discussed, including channels of communication.
Allocate resources. Necessary resources and appropriate sources of
funding were identified.
Publicize and promote. A procedure was discussed to market the
study of technology.

C H A P T E R
T
he standards in this chapter describe effec-
tive and appropriate practices to be used
by teachers and administrators (including
supervisors) as well as by local, district,
5
state/provincial/regional, and national/federal
entities to provide the continuous study of tech-
nology throughout student academic careers.
These program standards are aligned with
Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the
Study of Technology (STL) (ITEA, 2000a). They
are developed to be implemented in conjunction
with STL as well as with the student assessment
and professional development standards included
in Advancing Excellence in Technological Literacy:
Program Standards (AETL). Therefore, program
standards are of optimal use when curricula and
instruction have incorporated the concepts and
principles identified in STL. These standards
apply to the study of technology in technology
programs and other content area programs.
The ultimate goal is for all students to achieve
Note: The standards in this chapter are not intended to

address programs for computer literacy or programs for
educational (instructional) technology.
Administrators Definition of Program
are those
professionals who For the purposes of this document, program refers to everything that affects student
manage any learning, including content, professional development, curricula, instruction, student
aspect of the
assessment, and the learning environment, implemented across grade levels. Programs
educational
system, including for the study of technology support student attainment of technological literacy through
supervisors or technology programs as well as other content area programs. In other words, programs
teachers as for the study of technology are cross-curricular in nature. The technology program incor-
appropriate.
porates the study of technology across grade levels as a core subject of inherent value.
The cross-curricular technology program manages the study of technology across grade
This chapter has levels and disciplines.
separate
guidelines aimed
at teachers and Scope of Programs for the Study of Technology
administrators. As
a result, there is The program standards address the system that supports the comprehensive study of
some redundancy technology across grade levels and disciplines within a school or school district. In
between the preparing the program guidelines, the TfAAP staff noted that some guidelines were
guidelines for directed especially to teachers while others were directed toward administrators. With
teachers and
those for this in mind, this chapter has guidelines aimed at each of these groups. As a result, there
administrators. is some redundancy between the guidelines for teachers and those for administrators.
Guidelines directed at teachers provide guidance to technology teachers and other con-
The cross- tent area teachers responsible for facilitating instruction in the study of technology.
curricular While many of the guidelines apply to dedicated technology laboratory-classrooms, all
technology
teachers should be aware of the requirements for creating learning environments that
program refers to
everything that support the development of technological literacy.
affects student
attainment of Guidelines directed at administrators provide guidance for establishing a cross-
technological curricular technology program that incorporates the study of technology in all class-
literacy rooms of all grade levels, including but not exclusive to the technology laboratory-
implemented classroom. The cross-curricular technology program should be managed by administra-
across grade
levels and tors. It should support the study of technology through the technology program as well
disciplines. as other content area programs. Documented curricula based on STL should be estab-
lished and in use by teachers. Licensed teachers, who plan and facilitate learning, should
be employed to deliver the most comprehensive content for the study of technology.
While student attainment of technological literacy is primarily the responsibility of the
elementary teacher in Grades K–5 and the technology teacher in Grades 6–12, techno-
logical literacy for all students is a goal that transcends the technology laboratory-
classroom. Correspondingly, a cross-curricular technology program must be in place to
support technological literacy development in technology programs as well as in other
content area programs, across Grades K–12.
In keeping with current research on how students learn (NRC, 2000), these standards
integrate the total educational experience from Grades K–12 so that students are pro-
vided with continuous technology learning throughout their educational experience.
The management of programs for the study of technology must ensure a well-managed
and effective system for developing student technological literacy. Administrative sup-
70 CHAPTER FIVE/Program Standards

port is necessary to ensure that technology learning opportunities are available to stu- These program
dents in technology laboratory-classrooms as well as other content area classrooms. standards apply
to the study of
Programs for the study of technology must be continually evaluated for quality. technology in
technology
Evaluation instruments should be aligned with the program standards in this chapter
programs and
and provide accountability to all constituents involved with and interested in the quality other content
study of technology. area programs.
The vision behind the program standards calls on teachers, administrators, and policy- The management
makers to perpetuate interchange between elements of the program, including content, of programs for
the study of
professional development, curricula, instruction, student assessment, and the learning technology must
environment, in all areas of learning. The standards and guidelines of chapters 3, 4, and ensure a well-
5 of AETL are overlapping in nature to facilitate such interchange. managed and
effective system
for developing
Audiences for “Program Standards” student
Primary audiences: technological
Teachers literacy.
Administrators (including Supervisors)

Policymakers
State/Provincial/Regional Accreditation Boards
National/Federal Accreditation Boards
Business and Industry
General Public
CHAPTER FIVE/Program Standards 71

P-1 with STL
Standard P-1: Technology program development will

be consistent with Standards for Technological
Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology (STL).
T
echnology program development should be based on the nationally developed
STL, which provides the content ingredients for the study of technology. STL
defines what the study of technology in Grades K–12 will be, but it does not
An increasing dictate curricula or how the content of programs should be structured, evaluated, or
number of voices organized across grade levels. This task is left—as it should be—to the schools, school
are calling for the districts, and states/provinces/regions.
inclusion of
technology as a An increasing number of voices are calling for the inclusion of technology as a core dis-
core discipline in cipline in elementary, middle, and high schools. In other words, technology programs
elementary, should support the development of technology as a subject of inherent value, a core
middle, and high
subject that develops technological literacy, not only as a subject that facilitates the
schools.
understanding of other content areas. Curricula are major components of the program,
as they specify how the content identified in STL is structured across grade levels.
Curricula should be in the form of written documents, and every effort should be made
to keep them current. This is extremely important in the study of technology, where the
dynamic nature of the field results in constant change.
The development and implementation of the cross-curricular technology program
should support the study of technology in various content areas across Grades K–12. In
other words, dedicated technology laboratory-classrooms as well as science, mathemat-
ics, social studies, language arts, and other content area classrooms should be part of the
cross-curricular technology program. Technology teachers and other content area teach-
ers should work with administration to ensure that the study of technology occurs in a
comprehensive, articulated fashion across grade levels and disciplines.
Correlates with Standard P-2: Technology program development consistent with STL should be imple-
mented in a manner that facilitates technological literacy for all students.
Correlates with Standard P-3: Technology program development consistent with STL should be evaluated
in a manner that ensures and facilitates technological literacy for all students.
Correlates with Standard P-4: Technology program development consistent with STL should include learn-
ing environments that facilitate technological literacy for all students.
Correlates with Standard A-1: Technology programs developed to be consistent with STL will utilize stu-
dent assessment that is consistent with STL.
Correlates with Standard A-4: Technology programs developed to be consistent with STL will utilize stu-
dent assessment that reflects practical contexts consistent with the nature of technology.
Correlates with Standard PD-1: For technology program development to be consistent with STL, teachers
must be prepared with knowledge, abilities, and understanding that is consistent with STL.
Correlates with Standard PD-3: For technology program development to be consistent with STL, teachers
must be prepared to design and evaluate technology curricula and programs.
Refer to STL Standards 1–20: STL identifies the knowledge and abilities students must develop in their

S T A N D A R D
P-1 Consistency
with STL
Guidelines for teachers appear below. Guidelines for administrators begin on page 74.
Guidelines for meeting Standard P-1 require that the

teacher(s) responsible for the technology program(s)
consistently
A. Align program content with STL. C. Plan and develop the program
Teachers ensure program content is across disciplines. Teachers infuse
aligned with the standards and bench- technology programs with interdiscipli-
marks of the five main categories identi- nary linkages between technology and all
fied in STL: The Nature of Technology, school subjects, including science, math-
Technology and Society, Design, ematics, social studies, language arts, and
Abilities for a Technological World, and other content areas. Accordingly, nation-
The Designed World. Programs also ally developed standards in other content
comply with other school district, areas are considered in developing tech-
state/provincial/regional, and nology programs (see bulleted list in the
national/federal standards. previous guideline narrative).
D. Plan and develop the program
B. Align program content with across grade levels. Teachers consider
school district, state/provincial/ student developmental levels and design
regional, and national/federal stan- technology programs that are continuous
dards in other academic areas. and seamless from elementary schools
Teachers incorporate STL, as well as other through middle and high schools. Thus,
content area standards, into technology students experience a holistic, integrated,
programs. Nationally developed standards practical approach to technology and
include (but are not limited to): technological literacy. Technology pro-
National Science Education grams are documented, not just dis-
Standards (NRC, 1996) cussed. Further, technology programs
Benchmarks for Science Literacy
(AAAS, 1993)
Principles and Standards for
School Mathematics (NCTM,
2000)
Geography for Life: National
Geography Standards (GESP,
1994)
National Standards for History
(NCHS, 1996)
Standards for the English
Language Arts (NCTE, 1996)
National Educational Technology
Standards for Students (ISTE,
2000)

P-1 with STL
detail the ways in which post high school ment, and student peer assessment with
experiences can provide opportunities for technological activities. Simulations or
graduates to delve more extensively into real applications require students to
technological studies. Such linkages are demonstrate their knowledge and under-
made to both formal and informal edu- standing of the positive and negative
cation and include workplaces, profes- impacts and consequences in the devel-
sional careers, the military, mass media opment and use of technology.
and entertainment outlets, book and Technological activities are varied and
periodical publishers, and museums, representative of practical experiences,
among others. requiring students to think critically and
make decisions.
E. Assure that the program incorpo-
rates suitable cognitive, psycho- F. Promote adaptability for program
motor, and affective learning enhancement. Teachers keep technol-
elements. Teachers empower all stu- ogy programs up-to-date with
dents to attain technological literacy. state/provincial/regional and national
Opportunities for students to gain and perspectives based on the adoption of
demonstrate knowledge and abilities continuous-improvement models. Short-
related to technology are integrated to and long-range strategic planning is

facilitate student understanding (i.e., detailed, continuously reviewed, current,
knowing + doing = understanding). and oriented toward the future.
Teachers encourage students to become Technology programs are dynamic,
independent learners by integrating per- reflective of the evolving nature of
spective, empathy, student self assess- technology.
Guidelines for meeting Standard P-1 require that

administrators responsible for establishing the
cross-curricular technology program consistently
G. Stipulate that content be aligned H. Mandate instruction in the study
with STL. Administrators require teach- of technology as part of the core
ers to align the study of technology with educational experience for all stu-
the standards and benchmarks of the five dents. Administrators require teachers
main categories identified in STL: The to incorporate the study of technology
Nature of Technology, Technology and into daily instruction of all students.
Society, Design, Abilities for a Tech- Advancement and graduation require-
nological World, and The Designed ments incorporate technological literacy.
World. Programs for the study of tech- Scheduling formats are adjusted to allow
nology also address other school district, time for all students to study technology,
state/provincial/regional, and national/ both in technology laboratory-classrooms
federal standards. as well as in other content area
classrooms.

S T A N D A R D
P-1 Consistency
with STL
I. Advocate content that comple- K. Assure that the study of technol-

ments school district, state/ ogy occurs across grade levels.
provincial/regional, and national/ Administrators consider student develop-
federal standards in other academic mental levels and ensure that the study of
areas. Administrators require teachers technology is continuous and seamless
to incorporate STL, as well as other con- from elementary schools through middle
tent area standards, into their programs. and high schools. Programs provide stu-
Nationally developed standards include dents with holistic, integrated, practical
(but are not limited to): approaches to technology and technolog-
ical literacy.
National Science Education
Standards (NRC, 1996) L. Promote adaptability to enhance
Benchmarks for Science Literacy the study of technology.
(AAAS, 1993) Administrators insist that the study of
Principles and Standards for technology occurs in a manner that is
School Mathematics (NCTM, up-to-date and consistent with
2000) state/provincial/regional and national
Geography for Life: National perspectives. Short- and long-range
Geography Standards (GESP, strategic planning is detailed, continu-
1994) ously reviewed, current, and oriented
National Standards for History toward the future. Programs in the cross-
(NCHS, 1996) curricular technology program are
Standards for the English dynamic, reflective of the evolving nature
Language Arts (NCTE, 1996) of technology. They also reflect the prac-
National Educational Technology tical nature of technology, providing
Standards for Students (ISTE, opportunities for students to know and
2000) do technology.
J. Assure that the study of tech-

nology occurs across disciplines.
Administrators expect technology
teachers and other content area teachers
to work together to promote the study
of technology in all school subjects.
Programs acknowledge the interdisci-
plinary linkages that technology pro-
vides between all school subjects,
including science, mathematics, social
studies, language arts, and other con-
tent areas. Accordingly, nationally
developed standards in other content
areas are considered in the development
of the cross-curricular technology pro-
gram (see bulleted list in the previous
guideline).
V I G N E T T E A Transformation, Not A Reformation:
The Need for District-Wide Vision and Stakeholder Buy In
The Fort Worth Independent School District successfully made the transfor-
mation from Industrial Arts to Technology Education in 17 middle schools
and 12 high schools from 1989 to 1994. These programs and additional pro-
grams were transformed once again in 2000 to reflect the latest changes in
the study of technology. It is anticipated that another transformation will
Description be on the horizon in 2005 or 2006.
This transformation First, the vision for the program was shared by district administrators,
from Industrial Arts to supervisors, the school board, teachers, and community leaders (especially
Technology Education those businesses and industries in the area that hired the students). This
was successfully made vision specifically delineated the need for transformation, not simple refor-
due to administrator mation of the old program. Simply adding updated technology equipment,
for example, would not accomplish the vision. It is important to note that
and stakeholder
there was not total buy in by all stakeholders; the decision makers, both
support. This vignette
administratively and financially, were the primary forces behind successful
illustrates AETL transformation.
Standard P-1 G, K, and

L and Standard P-5 D, Next, a plan was developed that included the mission statement, short- and
F, G, I, and K. This long-range goals, evaluation standards, program selection, curricula, retro-
vignette correlates fitting of facilities and, perhaps most importantly, all aspects of teacher
training. To help teachers attain the vision, local administrators and super-
with AETL Standard A-5
visors shared their ideas. Then, teachers were exposed to existing programs,
A and C; Standard PD-3
sent to state and national conferences and workshops, and finally provided
A and D; and Standard with intensive training for every step of the implementation process.
PD-7 F. Teacher in-service began a year prior to implementation of the program.

Once the program was implemented, follow-up was conducted. Follow-up
by W. David Greer, DTE. included continual in-service of teachers; updating curricula, instructional
materials, and software; evaluation, feedback, and modifications to the pro-
gram; and public relations to illustrate program success to stakeholders.
Providing students with opportunities to share their experiences with family
and friends was an effective strategy for promoting the technology program
to the community. Support from the community was also solicited through
educator participation in district-wide activities that promoted other pro-
grams in the school and showed how the technology program supported
such programs as science, mathematics, social studies, language arts, and
other content areas.

S T A N D A R D
P-2 Implementation
Standard P-2: Technology program implementation

will facilitate technological literacy for all students.
I
mplementation of programs for the study of technology should be accomplished by
licensed technology teachers in dedicated technology laboratory-classrooms and by
other content area teachers in regular classroom settings. Support from management
is crucial. All teachers must be well prepared in pedagogy. Technology teachers and
other content area teachers must possess technological knowledge and abilities. The
licensure requirements for all teachers should be based on state/provincial/regional and
national/federal accreditation guidelines. Instruction of technology should be based on
STL and school district, state/provincial/regional, and national/federal standards in
other academic areas.
Teachers of all school subjects, including technology, must be provided with sustained
professional development to keep them abreast of the dynamic, technology-related sub-
ject matter. Instruction should comply with current research on how students learn
technology. Instruction should also advance curricular goals and student needs.
Correlates with Standard P-1: Technology program implementation that facilitates technological literacy
for all students requires development that is consistent with STL.
Correlates with Standard P-4: Technology program implementation that facilitates technological literacy
for all students requires learning environments that facilitate technological literacy.
Correlates with Standard PD-2: For teachers to implement technology programs that facilitate techno-
logical literacy for all students, they must be provided with educational perspectives on students as
learners of technology.
logical literacy for all students, they must be prepared to design and evaluate technology curricula and
programs.
logical literacy for all students, they must be prepared to use instructional strategies that enhance
technology teaching, student learning, and student assessment.
Refer to STL Standards 1–20: Implementation of technology programs should be consistent with STL and
provide students opportunities to experience technology through design, engineering design, and
problem solving (troubleshooting, research and development, invention and innovation, and experi-
mentation).

S T AImplementation
N D A R D
P-2

consistently
A. Provide instruction that is consis- study that support the development of
tent with research on how students technological literacy for all students.
learn technology. Teachers incorporate Teachers design and use instructional
the effects of student commonality and strategies based on curricular guides that
diversity, assist students in becoming incorporate prior learning and experi-
effective learners, and use informative ences of students yet avoid unnecessary
student assessment in the classroom, con- repetition.
sistent with “Student Assessment
Standards” (chapter 3) of AETL. C. Design and implement curricula
Teachers use the tools and materials of that enable all students to attain
educational (instructional) technology technological literacy. Teachers
properly and effectively to enhance stu- implement programs using curricula that
dent learning. enable students to learn from multiple
(knowing and doing) perspectives.
B. Provide instruction that is Teachers use the latest standards-based
designed to meet curricular goals curriculum development methods.
and student needs. Teachers develop Implementation of curricula is consistent
curricular guides and materials using with STL, providing students with
multiple sources of information, includ- opportunities to apply design abilities in
ing research, student assessment data, solving practical problems. Curricula and
state and national professional associa- instructional strategies are evaluated on a
tion resources, and input from stakehold- systematic basis.
ers. Curricular guides are used to direct
the selection and delivery of courses of D. Develop student leadership
opportunities. Teachers provide co-
and extra-curricular opportunities to
develop student leadership through stu-
dent organizations, enhancing what stu-
dents learn in technology programs.
For example, teachers support the
Technology Student Association (TSA),
which provides co-curricular educa-
tional experiences that enhance leader-
ship skills and enrich student learning
about technology, and the Junior
Engineering Technical Society (JETS),
which offers students a number of ser-
vices and activities to enhance techno-
logical literacy.
S T A N D A R D
P-2 Implementation

Educators are
E. Employ licensed teachers to behavior both inside and outside the
professionals
deliver technology content. classroom. Incentives are offered to involved in the
Administrators employ specialized tech- teachers to encourage their involvement teaching and
nology teachers to serve as the key people in and advisement of student technology learning process,
to facilitate student technological literacy organizations. Administrators expect such as teachers
in the school. All teachers complete teachers to provide leadership for their or administrators.
accreditation procedures that incorporate students, incorporating positive views
state/provincial/regional and toward teaching and learning into daily
national/federal accreditation guidelines instruction.
for their specialty areas. Licensure may be
G. Encourage instruction that is
obtained through an undergraduate
consistent with research on how
teacher preparation program or through
students learn technology.
alternative licensure methods.
Administrators expect all teachers to
Technology teachers and other content
accommodate for student commonality
area teachers possess knowledge and abil-
and diversity, assist students in becoming
ities consistent with STL and
effective learners, and use informative
“Professional Development Standards”
student assessment in the classroom, con-
(chapter 4) of AETL. Professional devel-
sistent with “Student Assessment
opment is provided to existing teachers,
Standards” (chapter 3) of AETL.
enabling them to comply with updated
Administrators encourage teachers to use
licensure requirements.
the tools and materials of educational
(instructional) technology properly and
F. Support sustained professional
effectively to enhance student learning.
growth and development of all edu-
cators. Administrators establish annual H. Advocate instruction that is
funding to support the study of technol- designed to meet curricular goals
ogy by providing professional develop- and student needs. Administrators
ment activities, enabling existing teachers require classroom teaching practices to be
and other educators to remain current consistent with curricular goals and stu-
with technology content. Administrators dent needs. Resources are made available
organize mentoring activities for new to support the development of curricular
teachers and student teachers. Admini- guides and documents using multiple
strators provide teachers with opportuni- sources of information, including
ties to collaborate with other educators research, student assessment data, state
about technological literacy. Adequate and national professional association
time is provided within school schedules resources, and input from stakeholders.
for teachers to pursue professional devel- Administrators require teachers to design
opment. Administrators expect teachers instructional strategies based on curricu-
to adhere to a high standard of ethical lar guides that incorporate prior learning

S T AImplementation
N D A R D
P-2
and experiences of students yet avoid business and industry to establish schol-
unnecessary repetition. Administrators arships for students who plan to return
provide resources to accomplish this task. to their school districts as technology
teachers.
I. Commit to the recruitment of
technologically competent teachers. J. Encourage all teachers to develop
Administrators support active, continu- student leadership opportunities.
ous recruitment of technology teachers at Administrators encourage all teachers to
the local, district, and state/provincial/ provide co- and extra-curricular opportu-
regional levels. Resources are made avail- nities to develop student leadership
able to support teacher recruitment through student organizations. For
efforts. Recruitment begins as early as example, the Technology Student
middle or high school. Administrators Association (TSA) provides co-curricular
encourage teachers to observe students in educational experiences that enhance
class to identify and recruit candidates leadership skills and enrich student learn-
for undergraduate technology teacher ing about technology, and the Junior
preparation programs. Administrators Engineering Technical Society (JETS)

encourage students to pursue careers as offers students a number of services and
technology teachers. Administrators also activities to enhance technological
encourage the community and local literacy.

S T A N D A R D
P-3 Evaluation
Standard P-3: Technology program evaluation will

ensure and facilitate technological literacy for all
students.
E
ach school, school district, and state/province/region should evaluate its pro-
grams to verify that the study of technology is occurring in technology labora-
tory-classrooms as well as in other content area classrooms in a manner
consistent with the program standards. Student achievement can be interpreted only in
light of the quality of the program that students experience. The variety and quality of
student assessment tools and methods based on STL is of critical importance in the
validity of decisions made in program evaluation. Essentially, the study of technology
must be evaluated to ensure that all students achieve technological literacy.
Those responsible for the study of technology should report its successes as well as its
failures to all stakeholders. Most localities, districts, and states/provinces/regions require
some type of accountability for the overall school program, including establishing the
study of technology. Accreditation agencies at the state/provincial/regional and
national/federal levels provide an excellent formal review process. Advisory committees
are an excellent way to receive input on the quality of programs. The results of these
evaluations should be shared with stakeholders through formal reports, internal and
external reviews, articles in local newspapers, spots on local television shows, parent-
teacher open houses, student organizations, and by other means. Revisions based on
program evaluations should occur, as the nature of technology is continuously
changing.
Effective technological study inspires all students to become keenly interested in tech-
nology as an inherent human ability and trait. Educational experiences in technology
should challenge students to pursue careers in technology as, for example, engineers,
architects, technicians, and technology teachers, among many other professions.
Correlates with Standard P-1: Technology program evaluation that ensures and facilitates technological
literacy for all students must be developed consistent with STL.
Correlates with Standard P-5: Technology program evaluation that ensures and facilitates technological
literacy for all students requires development that is consistent with STL.
Correlates with Standard A-1: Technology program evaluation requires student assessment that is con-
sistent with STL.
Correlates with Standard A-2: Technology program evaluation requires student assessment that is explic-
itly matched to its intended purpose.
Correlates with Standard A-3: Technology program evaluation requires student assessment that is sys-
tematic and derived from research-based principles.
Correlates with Standard A-4: Technology program evaluation requires student assessment that reflects
practical contexts consistent with the nature of technology.
Correlates with Standard A-5: Technology program evaluation requires student assessment that incorpo-
rates data collection for accountability, professional development, and program enhancement.
Correlates with Standard PD-3: For teachers to be able to evaluate technology programs, they must be
prepared to design and evaluate technology curricula and programs.
Refer to STL Standards 1–20: Evaluation of technology programs should ensure and facilitate technolog-
ical literacy for all students in accordance with the standards in STL.

S T AEvaluationN D A R D
P-3

consistently
A. Develop and utilize evaluation as a valuable resource to strengthen
that is consistent with standards programs.
and guidelines in “Program
B. Implement and use systematic,
Standards.” Teachers work with
continuous evaluation. Teachers col-
administrators to assure that external
lect and use data for program evaluations
reviews of programs for the study of
to plan and refine content. For example,
technology are performed in effective
evaluation data are used to prepare activi-
and efficient manners. Evaluations con-
ties that are incorporated into curricular
sider, among other things, whether stu-
courses of study, modules, units, or
dents are provided with relevant,
lessons. Teachers collect evaluation data
rigorous, and contextual connections to
in a systematic and continuous manner.

the technological world. Input is sought
from parents, other caregivers, and the C. Evaluate instruction on a regular
community at large to facilitate well- basis. Teachers evaluate, reflect upon,
rounded technological studies. Advisory and learn from their own practice.
committees are formed, comprised of Teachers openly seek to understand
informed and qualified persons. which plans, decisions, and actions are
Community input from parents, busi- effective in helping students learn, and
ness and industry leaders, local engi- which are not. The process of continued
neers, and interested citizens also serves refinement of teaching is based on ongo-

S T A N D A R D
P-3 Evaluation
ing evaluation of instructional strategies. using multiple methods to gather data

Teachers collect data in their classrooms about student progress, including port-
to assist them in making these decisions. folios, project assessments, peer evalua-
tions, rubrics, participation in class,
D. Plan for program revision.
reports, and group work, among others.
Teachers use program evaluation criteria
Both formative and summative student
to guide them in self assessment. Short-
assessment are aligned with curricular
and long-range planning are documented
and used to make programs comply with goals, and the resulting data from stu-
the needs revealed by evaluation. dent assessment tools and methods are
Strategic plans assist teachers with long- used to plan and revise programs.
range program revisions. Technology teachers and other content
area teachers are familiar with “Student
E. Accommodate for student com- Assessment Standards” (chapter 3) of
monality and diversity. Teachers AETL. Student assessment measures
design program evaluation criteria that both knowledge and abilities. Teachers
accommodate student similarities and are concerned about preventing isolated
differences, including interests, cultures, assessment results from becoming repre-
abilities, socio-economic backgrounds, sentations of the larger educational sys-
and special needs. Teachers provide
tem. Accordingly, when using student
access to students who, traditionally,
assessment results to impact program
have not been served by technology pro-
decisions, teachers pay particular atten-
grams. Technology programs accommo-
tion to the original purpose(s) and
date the needs of all students.
intended audience(s) of the assessment
F. Utilize effective student assess- tool or method to ensure that results are
ment. Teachers evaluate programs not interpreted out of context.

S T AEvaluationN D A R D
P-3

G. Assure that evaluation is consis- units, modules, and courses of study pro-
tent with standards and guidelines vide students opportunities to attain
in “Program Standards.” technological literacy.
Administrators evaluate the programs. In
addition, external reviews are conducted I. Encourage evaluation of instruc-
by groups charged with performing such tion on a regular basis.
evaluations. Administrators assure that Administrators encourage teachers to
external reviews are performed in effec- evaluate, reflect upon, and learn from
tive and efficient manners. Evaluations their own practice. Administrators rou-
consider, among other things, whether tinely observe classroom instruction and
students are provided with relevant, rig- offer teachers feedback and guidance to
orous, and contextual connections to the ensure the utilization of instructional
technological world in technology labo- strategies that promote student attain-

ratory-classrooms as well as in other con- ment of technological literacy. Admini-
tent area classrooms. Administrators seek strators support teachers as they seek to
input from parents, other caregivers, and understand which plans, decisions, and
the community at large to facilitate a actions are effective in helping students
comprehensive evaluation. Admini- learn, and which are not. The process of
strators form advisory committees, com- continued refinement of teaching is
prised of informed and qualified persons. based on ongoing evaluation of instruc-
Administrators seek community input tional strategies. Administrators expect
from parents, business and industry lead- teachers to collect data in their class-
ers, local engineers, and interested rooms to assist them in making decisions
citizens. and refine their teaching.
H. Employ systematic, continuous J. Plan for program revision.

evaluation. Administrators use evalua- Administrators prepare evaluation crite-
tion data to plan and refine the study of ria to guide teachers in self assessment.
technology in technology laboratory- Short- and long-range planning are doc-
classrooms and in other content area umented and used to assure that pro-
classrooms. Administrators ensure that grams comply with the needs revealed by
evaluation data are collected in a system- evaluation. Strategic plans are developed
atic and continuous manner by teachers, to assist with long-range revisions.
other administrators, and external Administrators seek input from teachers
sources. Administrators require teachers regarding short- and long-range planning
to conduct systematic, continuous evalu- decisions and discuss strategic plans with
ation to assure that activities, lessons, the faculty as appropriate.

Data-Based Decision Making V I G N E T T E
Ms. Smith taught technology for six years at the high school level. After
reviewing her curriculum guide, Ms. Smith noticed that the content of her
course related to energy and power was outdated and needed to be revised.
A fellow teacher mentioned workshops provided by the Technology for All Description
Americans Project Standards Specialists to inform educators about Standards
for Technological Literacy (STL) and provide them with strategies for imple- This technology
menting the standards in the laboratory-classroom. program revision effort
began with one teacher
Ms. Smith attended a workshop, where she learned about STL and strategies
and became a
for implementing STL into her curriculum. Upon returning from the work-
shop, Ms. Smith decided to design an end-of-the-course examination aimed systematic, continuous
at assessing student attainment of the STL standards and benchmarks evaluation method that
related to energy and power. She tested her students to determine a base- allowed teachers to
line for student learning prior to her planned curriculum revision. revise curricula,
instruction, and student
Ms. Smith used the student assessment data, STL, and the program stan-
assessment tools to
dards in AETL to begin revising her curriculum. As she worked on this task,
she realized that other teachers in her region might also want to revise support program
revisions and ensure
their curricula. With this thought in mind, she contacted the local univer-
sity to ask her former professor if any systematic reform was taking place to accountability. While
update energy and power curricula. Because he indicated there was not, Ms. the case presented is
Smith collaborated with the professor to involve other teachers in the cur- specific to the
riculum revision. technology laboratory-
Several teachers in the region expressed an interest in joining Ms. Smith’s classroom, teachers of
efforts to revise the technology program curricula. Recognizing that curric- other school subjects
ula demands constant revision when content is based on a field as dynamic can apply the concepts
as technology, the teachers sought funding for a three-year period to allow detailed in the passage
multiple revisions. With the support of administration, they ultimately to the revision of their
obtained funding through the State Department of Education to use student curricula, instruction,
assessment data on technological literacy as the basis for making curricular and student assessment
revisions to all content area programs. tools, promoting
The first re-design occurred during the summer. A student assessment instru- effective delivery of
ment was developed to guide future revisions. After the first re-design, cur- technology content.
ricula were taught for a year, and students were assessed at the conclusion This vignette illustrates
of the year. The results of the testing, along with data gathered prior to AETL Standard P-3 A, B,
curricular revision, guided the second revision of the curricular materials. C, D, and F. This
Ms. Smith and her colleagues met periodically to collaborate on curricular vignette correlates with
revisions. AETL Standard A-1 A;
During the second summer, revisions were made based on data gathered dur- Standard A-3 C;
ing the previous year and in accordance with standards in STL and AETL. Standard A-5 C; and
Student test results guided the curricular refinement efforts and allowed Standard PD-6 C.
curricula to be designed to satisfy student-learning needs. The curricula
were used to instruct students for a second year, and during the third sum- Adapted from a vignette written
mer, revisions were made again. While Ms. Smith’s original intent was to by John M. Ritz, DTE.
develop a standards-based curriculum for a single course, she stimulated
development of a framework that allowed teachers to collect and use data
related to student learning of technology to improve instruction, curricula,
P-4 Environments
Standard P-4: Technology program learning

environments will facilitate technological literacy
for all students.
I
n the 35th American Council on Industrial Arts Teacher Education (ACIATE)
Yearbook entitled, Implementing Technology Education Yearbook (1986), Richard
Henak and Richard Barella assert that the environment where technology is taught
should include both “physical” and “social” elements. The physical environment used
for the study of technology consists of the laboratory-classroom, equipment, materials
and supplies, and services that support teacher instruction and student learning. The
social environment is the atmosphere for learning, and it should be supportive, friendly,
and energizing for all learners. Learning is influenced in fundamental ways by the envi-
ronment in which it takes place.
Many laboratory-classrooms are ill-equipped to accommodate the standards-based study
of technology. Administrators should support technology teachers and other content
area teachers by providing learning environments conducive to the study of technology.
Such environments include dedicated technology laboratory-classrooms as well as other

content area classrooms that enhance student understanding of the technological world.
As our technological society advances, learning environments, resources, and support
mechanisms will be in constant change. Current, well-maintained, up-to-date equip-
ment and tools are mandatory for the study of technology. At the elementary grade lev-
els (K–5) and in content areas other than technology education, schools do not need
separate rooms for student activities; in many respects, it is advantageous to study tech-
nology in an integrated classroom environment, as it facilitates long-range studies and
connections between school subjects. In middle and high schools, dedicated technology
laboratory-classrooms should be provided to satisfy the requirements of the cross-
curricular technology program, which supports the study of technology in technology
laboratory-classrooms as well as in other content area classrooms.
Correlates with Standard P-1: Technology program learning environments that facilitate technological lit-
eracy for all students must incorporate development that is consistent with STL.
Correlates with Standard P-2: Technology program learning environments that facilitate technological lit-
eracy for all students are required for the implementation of technology programs.
Correlates with Standard PD-2: For teachers to develop learning environments that facilitate technological
literacy, they must be provided with educational perspectives on students as learners of technology.
Correlates with Standard PD-5: For teachers to develop learning environments that facilitate technolog-
ical literacy, they must be prepared to design and manage learning environments that promote tech-
nological literacy.
Refer to STL Standards 1–20: Learning environments should facilitate technological literacy for all stu-
dents in accordance with the standards in STL.

S T A N D A R D
P-4 Learning
Environments

consistently
A. Create and manage learning envi- Teachers take advantage of new develop-
ronments that are supportive of ments and make the best use of current
student interactions and student resources and systems. Teachers work
abilities to question, inquire, with various constituents to help create
design, invent, and innovate. the optimal learning environment,
Teachers design attractive, motivating, including administrators, advisory com-
stimulating, and nurturing learning envi- mittees, parents, policymakers, business
ronments, where academic risk taking is and industry leaders, legislators, and
encouraged and rewarded and students others.
are not afraid to make mistakes and learn
C. Implement a written, comprehen-
from them. Teachers design activities
sive safety program. Technology
with an understanding spirit and in ways
teachers assist in preparing a written and
to promote excitement. The environ-
comprehensive safety program for the
ment is learner-centered, and attention is
study of technology. This safety program
given to what is taught, why it is taught,
is implemented to ensure safe conditions
and what level of technological literacy is
and practices. Teachers design and main-
being pursued. The learning environ-
tain the learning environment to comply
ment encourages student innovation,
with local, district, state/provincial/
problem solving, and design, and it
regional, and national/federal specifica-
establishes expectations for student learn-
tions, codes, and regulations. Teachers
ing and teacher instruction. Teachers also
upgrade the learning environment based
use other environments in the commu-
on the results of external safety inspec-
nity and at business and industry loca-
tions. Teachers provide students with safe
tions to enhance student learning.
equipment and tools, adapting them as
B. Create and manage learning envi- necessary to accommodate the needs of
ronments that are up-to-date and all students.
adaptable. Teachers efficiently manage
a capital equipment budget line in the
school budget for technology programs.
Teachers obtain consumable materials
and supplies in sufficient quantity and
quality to achieve program goals.
Teachers design or modify the learning
environment to accommodate equip-
ment, tools, materials, and unique
instructional strategies that represent cur-
rent and future technologies using a con-
tinuously updated long-range plan.
P-4 Environments
D. Promote student development of E. Verify that the number of stu-

knowledge and abilities that pro- dents in the technology laboratory-
vides for the safe application of classroom does not exceed its
appropriate technological tools, capacity. Teachers verify that the work-
machines, materials, and processes. stations or resource capacities in labora-
Teachers expect students to demonstrate tory-classrooms are appropriate for the
acceptable knowledge, abilities, and atti- number of students in technology pro-
tudes of safe practices and rules through grams. Teachers ensure that the number
written and performance-based tests as of students on any given day does not
well as in-class behavior. Consequently, compromise the safety of the learning
by the time students graduate from high environment. Teachers acknowledge that
school, they are able to work with an in some cases, a workstation will accom-
modate a single student, while in others,
assortment of tools, materials, sophisti-
like modular environments, typical
cated equipment, and other resources.
workstations may serve two or more stu-
Teachers develop student abilities to syn-
dents. Teachers notify administrators of
thesize knowledge and processes and
unsafe learning environments so neces-
apply them to new and different
sary improvements can be made.

situations.

F. Provide learning environments equipment and tools as appropriate to
that are designed to facilitate deliv- the needs of students. Administrators
ery of STL and satisfy “Program provide dedicated technology laboratory-
Standards.” Administrators provide classrooms at the middle and high school
technologically-appropriate learning levels that are managed by technology
environments to teachers. Administrators teachers. Administrators provide learning
ensure that learning environments are environments supportive of the study of
created and managed based on the con- technology to elementary teachers and to
tent in STL. They also ensure that the teachers of other content areas.
learning environment is in compliance
with the standards and guidelines in G. Provide learning environments
AETL. The learning environment is that are safe, up-to-date, and adapt-
resource-rich and incorporates a variety able. Administrators allocate funds to
of technologies. The learning environ- provide consumable materials and sup-
ment is equipped for the use of educa- plies in sufficient quantity and quality to
tional (instructional) technology. It teachers to ensure program goals are
accommodates both student commonal- achieved. Administrators create a capital
ity and diversity in a positive manner, equipment budget line in the budget for
providing specially designed or modified programs for the study of technology.

S T A N D A R D
P-4 Learning
Environments
Administrators provide resources to I. Provide elementary school

ensure that the learning environment is classrooms with adequate physical
designed to accommodate equipment, space for teaching technology.
tools, materials, and unique instructional Administrators support the study of
strategies. Funding allows teachers to technology in a regular classroom at the
take advantage of new developments and elementary school level. Administrators
make the best use of current resources provide ample space for students to do
and systems. Administrators ensure the activities in a safe manner. Additionally,
laboratory-classroom is a safe learning adequate physical space is provided in or
environment. Administrators require near the classroom for the safe storage of
teachers to evaluate the safety of the equipment, tools, individual/group pro-
learning environment in compliance jects, materials, and supplies.
with local, district, state/provincial/ J. Provide dedicated technology
regional, and national/federal specifica- laboratory-classrooms in middle and
tions, codes, and regulations and report high schools with a minimum allot-
their findings. ment of 100 square feet per pupil,
inclusive of safe ancillary space.
H. Ensure that the number of stu- Administrators provide dedicated space
dents in a dedicated technology labo- at the middle and high school levels for
ratory-classroom does not exceed its technology laboratory-classrooms.
capacity. Administrators ensure that the Administrators provide adequate space
workstations or resource capacities in for students to work individually as well
dedicated technology laboratory-class- as collectively in the study of technology
rooms are appropriate for the number of and to display both work in progress and
students in the program. Administrators finished work. Ancillary space exists for
ensure that the number of students on the safe and convenient storage of pro-
any given day does not compromise the jects, group products, and materials
safety of the environment. needed to study technology.

V I G N E T T E The Study of Technology:
A Cross-Curricular Perspective
Question: What does the study of technology look like in your
classroom?
Response: As a kindergarten teacher, I am given content knowledge that I
am responsible to teach to my students. Children’s Engineering or Design
Technology is not something extra added onto that teaching task, it is a
Description
teaching strategy that integrates the core curriculum areas. When handed a
These educators design brief, my students become actively involved and embrace their learn-
describe how the study ing. They learn to become divergent and critical thinkers as they creatively
of technology looks in solve real-world problems. The end product instills pride and confidence, and
their classrooms and their learning is relevant—ensuring longer retention. Design Technology
what classroom puts the FUN into teaching and learning.—Bonnie B. Berry, Kindergarten
Teacher
learning environment
is most effective to Response: Technology education in the 2nd grade classroom looks inviting
help students achieve to all ages. In any given lesson, students are planning, designing, measur-
technological literacy. ing, building and creating, observing, sharing, changing, sometimes failing,
As these educators and possibly starting all over again. Students use tools such as saws, drills,
describe classrooms at and hammers to accomplish the challenges presented to them. The building
various grade levels starts after the planning part of the portfolio is completed. Reflection and
sharing are the final aspects of this learning loop. The students take owner-
and from varied
ship and assume responsibility for their learning. By becoming designers,
content area
their discoveries are more meaningful and relevant to real-life situations.—
perspectives, their Janis Detamore, 2nd Grade Teacher
responses reflect
implementation of a Response: I prefer to use long-term projects that incorporate all of the
cross-curricular aspects of what we are learning. That way students are able to see and do
technology program. all of the steps that go into a project. I also feel it is important to stress
process over product. Not all projects will work or look perfect, but if the
This vignette
student has learned all of the processes, steps, and skills related to the area
illustrates AETL
of study, they will have a better chance at being successful in projects and
Standard P-1 C, D, E, G, challenges to come.—Thomas Kaiser, 11th and 12th Grade Technology
J, and K and Standard Education Teacher
P-4 A, B, D, F, I, and J.
Response: In the state of Utah, we are using the ITEA’s Standards for
Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology as the backbone
Contributions by:
Bonnie B. Berry, for our Technology and Engineering programs. Technological literacy is the
Janis Detamore, Thomas Kaiser, main focus in all of our middle school/junior high school programs. At the
and Melvin Robinson. high school level, we are also focusing on introducing students to the world
of engineering.—Melvin Robinson, Technology and Engineering Specialist,
Utah State Office of Education
Question: What classroom learning environment would be most effec-
tive in facilitating technological learning?
Response: My classroom contains many resources such as Lasy®, Legos®,
and Gears® for the children to design, build, test, and evaluate their own
creations. Design briefs generate innovative ideas, which the very young
student sometimes lacks the ability to carry out if not given support.
Support can be an adult having the strength to punch holes in a plastic
container. During one activity, the students designed and built a monkey
cage and wanted an alarm on the door. Support was necessary to secure the
correct switch and wire it. Students use computers and digital cameras when
creating technology log reports.—Bonnie B. Berry, Kindergarten Teacher
Response: The classroom learning environment has to first and foremost be
a safe place where students have learned how to correctly use the tools. It
is a place where listening and observing your peers helps you in your own
planning and implementation. It is a place where everyone is excited about
his or her own ideas and stays on task in order to accomplish his or her
goals. For example, when creating their “perfect chair,” students worked
through many of the content areas and didn’t even realize it, because they
were having too much fun. We talked about and experienced firsthand how
to make the chairs unique. We also learned and implemented geometry,
scale, measuring, spatial relationships, writing persuasive paragraphs, and
oral expression. My job is to state the challenge, set the limitations, and
then fade into the background to help and encourage while the students
take control of their own learning.—Janis Detamore, 2nd Grade Teacher
Response: The best learning environment for project-based learning is a
laboratory setting. Here instructional strategies such as demonstration and
practice can be used. Often, drawings on a white board or short discussions
can lead to a detailed demonstration. Hopefully, a good demonstration will
help the students ask good questions and prepare them to do the task them-
selves. Once they have acquired the knowledge and abilities necessary to
perform the assigned task, they will be able to transfer their understanding
to other activities and projects.—Thomas Kaiser, 11th and 12th Grade
Technology Education Teacher
Response: The best facility would have three parts. First, a classroom with
desks, where discussions, lectures, and knowledge processing can take
place; second, a clean area with 5 to 10 computer learning stations,
equipped with current computers and software that can be used to help
teach technological literacy; and third, a well-equipped general production
laboratory where students can get their hands dirty building models, proto-
types, and other applied activities that promote learning. Our motto here in
Utah is “Hands On, Minds On Education.”—Melvin Robinson, Technology and
Engineering Specialist, Utah State Office of Education

S T AManagement
N D A R D
P-5
Standard P-5: Technology program management will
be provided by designated personnel at the school,
school district, and state/provincial/regional levels.
T
he quality of management in the study of technology is a key factor in the suc-
cess or failure of the system. Management personnel must understand the dif-
ferences between technology, technology education, technological literacy, and
educational technology as well as their interrelationships. Technology is the innovation,
change, or modification of the natural environment (world) to satisfy perceived human
wants and needs. Technology education is the study of technology; it provides an oppor-
tunity for students to learn about processes and knowledge that are needed to solve
problems and extend human capabilities. The standards-based study of technology leads
to technological literacy. Educational technology uses technologies as tools to enhance the
teaching and learning process (ITEA, 2002a).
All management personnel, including teachers and administrators, must support the
contribution of technological study in advancing technological literacy for all students
in Grades K–12. All management personnel should ensure that the study of technology,
under their leadership, complies with STL and utilizes the standards and guidelines in
AETL for student assessment, professional development, and program enhancement in
the schools. Those who establish programs for the study of technology must provide
curricular, instructional, philosophical, and fiscal support for technological studies to
teachers.
Correlates with Standard P-1: Technology program management must be provided to confirm that tech-
nology program development is consistent with STL.
nology program implementation facilitates technological literacy for all students.
nology program evaluation ensures and facilitates technological literacy for all students.
nology program learning environments facilitate technological literacy for all students.
Correlates with Standard A-5: Technology management personnel will utilize student assessment data to
guide program enhancement decisions.
Correlates with Standard PD-3: To manage technology programs, teachers must be prepared to design and
evaluate such programs.
Refer to STL Standards 1-20: Technology program management must be provided to ensure that technol-
ogy program content is consistent with STL.

S T A N D A R D
P-5 Management
Guidelines for teachers follow. Guidelines for administrators begin below.

teacher(s) responsible for the management of the
technology program(s) consistently
A. Develop and use action plans C. Market and promote the study of
based on STL. Teachers develop and technology. Teachers market technol-
use action plans based on STL that ogy programs to the community, helping
incorporate program mission state- to increase public understanding about
ments, goals, short- and long-range technology. Advisory committees are very
strategic planning, organization, evalua- helpful in this process. Student involve-
tion, and responsibilities. Teachers ment in organizations such as the
incorporate mission statements and Technology Student Association (TSA)
goals into long-range technology pro- and Junior Engineering Technical Society
gram action plans. (JETS) are available to assist. Teachers
develop relationships with local busi-
B. Maintain data collection for nesses and industries to solicit under-
accountability. Teachers are account- standing and support. Teachers promote
able to the stakeholders. Teachers make technology programs and technological
external evaluation results public to the literacy as essential components of educa-
constituents in the community. tion to parents, the local school board,
Accountability systems are sensitive to and civic and economic development
the needs of the community. groups.
Note: While each of the following guidelines suggests general means of meeting the standard, users should
refer to Table 6 (p. 96) for suggested responsibilities of schools, school districts, and states/
provinces/regions.

administrators responsible for the management of the
D. Develop and use action plans E. Maintain data collection for
based on STL. Administrators develop accountability. Administrators are
and use action plans based on STL that accountable to the stakeholders. The
incorporate program mission statements, results of external evaluation are made
goals, short- and long-range strategic public and are shared with all of the con-
planning, organization, evaluation, and stituents in the school and the commu-
responsibilities. Programs for the study of nity. Accountability systems are sensitive
technology are in place, with mission to the needs of the community.
statements and goals as part of the long-
range plan.

S T AManagement
N D A R D
P-5
F. Market and promote the study of maintenance, resources, and planning.

technology. Administrators market the Legislative budget requests support
study of technology to the community, strategies for technological literacy.
helping to increase public understanding Policies and procedures that support
about technology. Administrators may equipment, supplies, and professional
use advisory committees to help in this development are developed and utilized.
process. Student involvement in organi- Standard accounting and inventory prac-
zations such as the Technology Student tices are shared no less than quarterly
Association (TSA) and Junior Engi- with instructional staff.
neering Technical Society (JETS) are
available to assist. Administrators develop H. Align technology programs with
relationships with local businesses and state/provincial/regional accredita-
industries to solicit understanding and tion systems. Administrators employ
support. Administrators promote techno- accountability systems that evaluate and
logical literacy as an essential component measure how the study of technology
of education to parents, the local school aligns with state/provincial/regional stan-
board, and civic and economic develop- dards for technological literacy and satis-
ment groups. fies program standards identified in this
G. Provide funding, support, and chapter. These results indicate program
resources to accomplish missions, compliance with STL and AETL.
goals, and curricular objectives. Administrators use STL and AETL to
Administrators identify funding sources, judge the quality and effectiveness of
and multi-year budget proposals are pre- technology programs.
pared based upon improvements targeted
by programs for the study of technology. I. Establish articulated and inte-
Administrators advocate for and allocate grated technology programs district
funds for professional development, wide. Administrators articulate and

S T A N D A R D
P-5 Management
integrate the study of technology district latest thinking in the study of technology
wide. Articulation ensures that students and encourage teachers to do the same.
develop the knowledge and abilities iden-
L. Provide resources and opportuni-
tified by STL in a consistent, progressive
ties to support technology teachers
manner from kindergarten through
and other content area teachers in
Grade 12. Administrators encourage
the teaching and learning process.
technology teachers to actively promote
Administrators maintain manageable
the study of technology in a manner that
teacher schedules and class sizes.
encourages students to acknowledge the
Necessary resources are provided by
interdisciplinary linkages that technology
administrators for the successful opera-
provides among all school subjects.
tion of programs for the study of tech-
J. Establish and utilize a manage- nology. Resources and opportunities for
ment system. Administrators use data all teachers to engage in program imple-
and observations to monitor, evaluate, mentation are also provided.
and manage the study of technology. Administrators establish and enforce
These data are collected, analyzed, trans- policies and practices to encourage sup-
mitted, stored, maintained, and reported port for teachers and the teaching and
to stakeholders. The mandates of learning process. Resources are also pro-
state/provincial/regional policy are vided by administrators for the contin-
observed by administrators in the man- ued professional development of all
agement of the study of technology. educators concerned with advancing stu-
dent technological literacy.
K. Support professional technology
organization engagement by teachers
and management personnel.
Administrators participate—and encour-
age teachers to participate—in commit-
tees and professional organizations
related to technology for the purposes of
technological literacy improvement and
continuity. Management personnel pro-
vide leadership in professional organiza-
tions, collaborating with technology
teacher preparation programs. All man-
agement personnel keep abreast of the

96
Table 6. Guidelines for Standard P-5: School, School District, and State/Provincial/Regional Realms of Responsibility
Standard P-5: Technology program management will be provided by designated personnel at the school, school district, and state/provincial/regional levels.
Guidelines for meeting Standard P-5
require that administrators
responsible for the management of the School School District State/Provincial/Regional
cross-curricular technology program
consistently
D. Develop and use action plans based Write a school improvement plan. Write a locally defined plan with mission Write a statewide/province-wide/
on STL. statement and goals. region-wide framework with vision/
mission statements.
E. Maintain data collection for Conduct evaluation on a regular schedule. Use data and/or observations to improve Observe the mandates of
accountability. programs. state/provincial/regional policy in the
evaluation of technological studies.
F. Market and promote the study of Promote the study of technology to Promote program to community and civic Develop and employ marketing techniques
technology. parents and the local school board. and economic development groups. to promote the study of technology at the
Establish an advisory committee to Promote the study of technology via local state/provincial/regional levels.
promote the study of technology within media. Establish liaison to local advisory
the community. committee.
G. Provide funding, support, and resources Identify funding resources and plan multi-year Allocate funds for professional Request state/provincial/regional and
to accomplish missions, goals, and budget based on program improvements. development resources and planning. national/federal legislative budget
curricular objectives. allocations to support strategies for
technological literacy. Adopt policies and
procedures that support equipment,
supplies, and professional development.
H. Align the technology program with Observe the mandates of school policy in Observe the mandates of district policy in Observe the mandates of state/provincial/
state/provincial/regional accreditation the evaluation of the program. the evaluation of the program. regional policy in the evaluation of the
CHAPTER FIVE/Program Standards

systems. program.
I. Establish articulated and integrated Schedule and assign staff. Provide Advocate professional development and Provide statewide/province-wide/region-
technology programs district wide. resources. program development. wide leadership through effective com-
munication, professional development,
and program development.
J. Establish and utilize a management Develop and use a management system for Establish and utilize district-wide manage- Establish and utilize a state/provincial/
system. the school program. ment to provide direction and regional management system to guide
administration to the program. and direct the program.
K. Support professional technology Participate in committees and professional Provide leadership in professional Provide leadership in professional
organization engagement by teachers organizations within and beyond the organizations at the district, state/ organizations at state/provincial/regional
and management personnel. school. provincial/regional, and national/federal and national/federal levels. Collaborate
levels. with technology teacher preparation
programs in states/provinces/regions.
L. Provide resources and opportunities to Maintain manageable schedules and class Provide resources and opportunities for Establish and enforce policies and
support technology teachers and other sizes. Provide necessary resources for the curriculum development and program practices to encourage local and district
content area teachers in the teaching operation of the program. implementation. administrators to support teachers and
and learning process. the teaching and learning process.
C H A P T E R
V
isualize a laboratory-classroom where
students are engaged in the study of
technology. The standards described in
Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for
6
the Study of Technology (STL) (ITEA, 2000a) are
reflected in the learning activities. Imagine all of
the students with varied prior experiences and
abilities working collectively, in pairs, and indi-
vidually to learn about the technological world in
which they live. Students are actively engaged,
trying out solutions to technological problems.
They revisit prior solutions and retest ideas using
new information. They are curious, ask questions,
and accept the responsibility for developing tech-
nological literacy. Student assessment is varied,
providing information for students to adjust their
learning and for teachers to adjust their instruc-
tion. It is an active environment full of enthusi-
asm for learning.
Picture teachers seeking professional development
opportunities to remain current in the study of
technology and confident about utilizing
Program Standards (AETL) and STL in the
laboratory-classroom. Schools support the study
of technology and have faculties that work
together to empower students. Elementary teach-
ers, technology teachers, and other content area
teachers work together to integrate content and
educational activities to make learning more
interesting and meaningful.
Imagine administrators, policymakers, parents, business and industry leaders, and the
community at large working together to create environments that promote the study of
technology and support teacher and student growth. Time and resources are provided,
enabling teachers to educate and students to learn. Institutions of higher education sup-
port teacher preparation and professional development in compliance with professional
development standards. Professional and student organizations, such as the Inter-
national Technology Education Association (ITEA), the Technology Education
If the study of Collegiate Association (TECA), the Council for Technology Teacher Education
technology is to (CTTE), the ITEA Council of Supervisors (ITEA-CS), the Technology Education
undergo the
Children’s Council (TECC), the Technology Student Association (TSA), and the
acceptance and
implementation Junior Engineering Technical Society (JETS) provide leadership, resources, professional
necessary to development, and opportunities for teachers and students that improve the study of
bring about technology and the development of technological literacy for all.
technological
literacy for all Making technological literacy a reality for all students requires a strong system of sup-
students, policies port for content (STL), student assessment, professional development, and programs
must support the (AETL).
vision inherent in
STL and AETL, Recognizing the Challenge

consistently
requiring all The study of technology is offered in most schools in a variety of formats. Some
students to study states/provinces/regions offer the study of technology as an elective, while others pro-
technology from vide it as part of core requirements. If the study of technology is to undergo the accep-
kindergarten tance and implementation necessary to bring about technological literacy for all
through Grade 12.
students, policies must support the vision inherent in STL and AETL, consistently
requiring all students to study technology from kindergarten through Grade 12.
Local, district, and state/provincial/regional entities are generally more influential in
promoting the study of technology in a school system than any other group. It is
important that local policymakers, state and local school boards, and state/provincial/
regional and federal legislators become familiar with the goals of STL and AETL.
Implementing the standards and developing technology programs for Grades K–12 will
require content, professional development, curricula, instruction, student assessment,
and learning environments that enable all students to develop technological literacy.
Support from professionals teaching technology is vital to the realization of the vision.
Using STL and AETL as a basis for modifying instruction, teachers can highlight the
importance of the study of technology and the value of technological literacy.
AETL identifies standards necessary to support the study of technology. Many systems
influence the study of technology, including government, the public sector, and pro-
fessional organizations and societies. These systems must work together to deliver
quality education related to the study of technology. Day-to-day activities in the
laboratory-classroom are directly and indirectly affected by the decisions that are made
by the individuals that comprise these systems. Therefore, it is imperative that all those
involved in the study of technology are aware of the recommendations being made and
the need for technologically literate students. Systems must support the vision con-
tained in STL and AETL.
98 CHAPTER SIX/Working Together
Roles and Responsibilities
In conjunction with STL and AETL, the following need to be involved in the develop-
ment, implementation, and evaluation of technology programs:
Teachers
Teacher Educators/Higher Education
Resource Developers
School Administrators and Policymakers
Technology Students and Student Organizations
Parents, Other Caregivers, and Communities
Museums
Professional Organizations
Researchers
Teachers
Technology teachers and other content area teachers must develop and maintain the
technological and pedagogical knowledge necessary to teach students. STL and AETL
provide the necessary roadmap to help them move forward. Collaborating with col-
leagues, taking advantage of professional development opportunities that fit their learn-
ing needs, and consulting with professionals on how to enhance their programs are
some of the methods that teachers may use to help create learning opportunities where
few exist. Technology teachers and other content area teachers are responsible for what
happens in the laboratory-classroom and can directly influence how students perceive
and accept learning. Technology teachers and other content area teachers must help
their students feel confident and engaged in developing technological literacy. They
must use all resources available to meet this goal. At the elementary level, technology
should be taught in the regular classroom. Although elementary teachers may initially
feel unqualified to teach technology, with quality in-service they can integrate techno-
logical concepts across the curriculum. At middle and high school levels, technology
teachers have a major responsibility to advance technological literacy. Other content
area teachers can also confirm and support the necessity for technological literacy.
Utilizing STL and AETL, these teachers will enable students to learn about the rich
interdisciplinary relationships between technology and other school subjects, such as
science, mathematics, social studies, language arts, and other content areas.
Teacher Educators/Higher Education

Higher education faculties have significant influence on the teaching of technology, pri-
marily through their work with teacher candidates but also through effective in-service
of existing teachers. Teacher preparation and higher education programs must teach
educators how to implement the standards in STL and AETL. The first few years of a
teacher’s career are critical to his or her persistence in teaching and to his or her disposi-
tion toward continued professional development. In-service programs must address
AETL and help teachers implement STL. College and university administrators are
CHAPTER SIX/Working Together 99
encouraged to provide support and philosophical leadership for reform and to work
closely with K–12 education to provide effective in-service. Those who educate technol-
ogy teachers should review and revise undergraduate and graduate degree programs
using AETL as the basis for teaching technology. Furthermore, strategies should be
designed and implemented for incorporating state/provincial/regional and national/
federal accrediting guidelines to help implement and accredit teacher preparation pro-
grams, including innovative methods to recruit and retain teachers. Teacher preparation
faculty should assist in developing and reforming the study of technology in elementary,
middle, and high schools. Collaboration with other professional development providers,
veteran teachers, engineers, and other technologists will help demonstrate to new teach-
ers the value of continued professional growth.
Resource Developers
If the study of technology is to be effective, the time in the school day devoted to tech-
nology, as well as the instructional materials, facilities, equipment, and other parts of
technology programs, must be appropriate and current. In particular, instructional
materials and support documents produced by resource developers should be reflective
of STL and AETL. If policies are enacted without regard for the resources needed to
implement AETL, schools, teachers, and students are placed in impossible positions.
The design and structure of curricular materials and learning systems for the study of
technology produced by resource developers must reflect the vision that all students can
develop technological literacy. For schools to meet the standards in STL and AETL,
technological literacy by all students must be viewed as a primary purpose and a worthy
goal, and policies must support the vision.
School Administrators and Policymakers

Beyond the laboratory-classroom, school administrators—principals, supervisors, direc-
tors of instruction, superintendents, and others—must recognize the importance of
technological literacy for all students and support the study of technology. School
administrators must actively pursue support from business and industry. To that end,
school administrators and policymakers can provide support and work to develop poli-
cies that are congruent with AETL while allowing for local adaptation. These policies
need to have specific characteristics including, but not limited to:
Coordination within and across the school community.
Sufficient time to provide continuity to bring about change.
Resources necessary to promote program reform.
Review and evaluation to meet the changing needs of teachers and students.
Equitable opportunities for all students to truly overcome challenges and have
the opportunity to achieve technological literacy.
Technology Students and Student Organizations

Students who study technology (technology students) often work on technological
problems, innovations, and inventions. When curricula are stimulating, challenging,
and rewarding, students are encouraged to become actively involved in the development
of technological literacy. If students are committed to developing technological literacy,
they will do their part by engaging seriously with the material and striving to make con-
nections between technology and content in other school subjects that will enhance
their learning. Technology students need to communicate their ideas and understand-
ings to their teachers, better enabling teachers to design instruction to address student
misconceptions or difficulties. Technology students need to take advantage of the
resources available to them to help answer their questions, enhance their learning, and
improve their technological literacy. As students look to potential careers in technology,
they can begin to discover the requirements for those careers and investigate what tech-
nology courses of study they should pursue to help them prepare for their futures.
The Technology Student Association (TSA) provides co-curricular educational experi-
ences that enrich student development of technological literacy. To further that goal,
TSA chapters are encouraged to use AETL in developing teacher preparation materials,
new activities, and competitive events.
Preparing teachers and advisors with the standards put forth in AETL could enhance
other student groups offering services and activities to students, including Student
Council and FFA. At the collegiate level, the Technology Education Collegiate
Association (TECA), a university-based organization for teacher candidates, can
incorporate AETL into its teacher preparation activities.
Parents, Other Caregivers, and Communities

Parents, other caregivers, and communities should be invited to participate in examining
and improving programs for the study of technology. Everyone needs to be aware of the
goals and reformations proposed in AETL. When parents and their communities under-
stand the value of the study of technology and developing technological literacy, they can
be invaluable in convincing children, friends, and others of
the need to learn more about technology and to take the
study of technology seriously. If parents and others are not
aware of the value of the study of technology, they can halt
carefully planned revision and reform. AETL is written to
encourage dialogue and commitment to improving the
study of technology for all students. It is the responsibility
of the educational system to inform parents, other care-
givers, and communities about the goals and objectives of
the technology program. This empowers everyone to partic-
ipate knowledgeably.

It is vital that business and industry leaders and profes-
sionals at the local, district, state/provincial/regional, and
national/federal levels become more involved in preparing
students for future endeavors, especially in developing
technological literacy. Business and industry leaders and professionals have the resources
and expertise to help implement STL and AETL. They should be encouraged to work
closely with school, school district, and state/provincial/regional educators to improve
the study of technology. Providing their expertise to teachers, students, and technology
programs, business and industry leaders can aid in developing high quality, relevant,
hands-on experiences that will empower students and augment their learning.
Museums
Museums and science/technology centers can play an important role in the implemen-
tation of technological literacy. Citizens of all ages are afforded informal education
through exhibits, interactive displays, and other programs at museums and science/
technology centers. Museums and science/technology centers should work closely with
the technology profession in the future to further these opportunities.
Professional Organizations
Engineers, designers, architects, technologists, scientists, and other professionals and
their organizations, as well as the International Technology Education Association

(ITEA) and teacher associations, such as the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics (NCTM), the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), and the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), can provide national
and regional leadership and expertise in supporting the reform efforts and the imple-
mentation of STL and AETL. Professional organizations that serve as champions of
technological literacy for all, such as the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the Institute of Electrical and Electronic
Engineers (IEEE), the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and the
Industrial Designers Society of America (IDSA), will not only benefit society in general
but also the professions they represent. Programs that lead to careers in these professions
include the K–12 educational community. Technological literacy will benefit these pro-
fessions in a number of ways. For example, as more students receive high-quality
instruction in technology more will be likely to select one of the many technological
professions available and pursue future studies in a technological field.
Research is Researchers
needed that
explores the
Quality programs are vital to the health of technology as a discipline, and the profession
specific ways in of technology teachers has a clear stake in this enterprise. Because few studies have
which students examined K–12 technology programs, there is an acute need for additional research
learn technology about technology. In particular, research is needed that explores the specific ways in
and how the which students learn technology and how the study of technology enhances the student
study of educational experience. This research will be important in providing information to
technology
policymakers that will reinforce the value of including technology in today’s schools.
enhances the
student Furthermore, research is needed to move AETL forward and to provide support and
educational direction for future revisions. Active research by teachers and administrators is necessary.
experience. They may study the current assessment tools or consider how the development of new
curricula based on STL and the
incorporation of up-to-date assess-
ment methods affect how well stu-
dents meet the standards. Research
in this area will help to improve
“Student Assessment Standards”
(chapter 3) of AETL. Likewise,
research in professional development
and program enhancement is neces-
sary to prevent disjointed or haphaz-
ard efforts. A research agenda that
addresses “Professional Development
Standards” (chapter 4) and
“Program Standards” (chapter 5) of
AETL will be invaluable in develop-
ing opportunities to advance the
teaching and learning of technology.
School, school district, state/provincial/regional, and national/federal curricular frame-
works and standards need ongoing examination and revision. An accepted and refined
research agenda is necessary to help reform efforts be timely and effective.
Putting Advancing Excellence in Technological Literacy into Action

The standards in chapters 3, 4, and 5 offer perspectives to guide policymakers. If the
study of technology or the ideas conveyed in STL are not student accessible, student
development of technological literacy will be haphazard and happenstance. Technology
teachers and other content area teachers need to have learning environments that enable
students to learn and teachers to know what students learn. The following highlights
each of the chapters, showing how the standards can help shape answers to important
questions about the study of technology.
Is assessment aligned with instructional goals and reflective of “Student Assessment

Standards?” Assessment is a fact of life in education. Large-scale assessment tools and
methods have become a major concern to many educators. Technology teachers and
other content area teachers are understandably concerned when large-scale tests concen-
trate on cognitive learning and leave out the psychomotor and affective domains.
Assessment tools and methods must be in alignment with STL and incorporate
“Student Assessment Standards” (chapter 3) of AETL. If they are not aligned, and if
they do not reflect the school and community goals for the study of technology, teachers
and students are left in a risky position. If teachers have adopted STL and AETL,
then satisfying the sometimes opposing roles of school, school district, state/provincial/
regional, and national/federal assessment policies and procedures can be challenging.
“Teaching to the test” becomes a reality when results of scores are tied to the profes-
sional advancement of educators. Assessment, both formative and summative, must be
linked to the goals teachers are being asked to achieve. The assessment of student
understanding can be enhanced by the use of appropriate assessment tools and meth-
ods, such as portfolios, group projects, and authentic problem solving. However, stu-
dents and parents alike may find these forms unfamiliar to the traditional assessment
formula. Teachers need support from administration, school boards, and professional
groups to help students and parents understand the value of using such approaches to
enhance student learning and improve instruction.
How will “Professional Development Standards” help? Teachers, educators, and
other members of the technology teaching profession need to know and use
“Professional Development Standards” (chapter 4) of AETL. They need to be aware of
the aspects of teaching technology that combine technological and pedagogical knowl-
edge. The technology teaching profession must be as adaptable as the field of technol-
ogy. It must be adaptable to changing curricula, practices, and laboratory-classroom
experiences. It should incorporate new knowledge of how students effectively learn
technology. Teacher preparation is the cornerstone for grooming teachers to teach tech-
nology, yet, as good as many technology teacher preparation programs are, they only
provide teacher candidates with a small part of what they need to know and be able to
do throughout their professional careers. In-service programs must be readily available
to provide existing teachers with needed assistance and preparation for implementing
STL and AETL, incorporating new technological topics and adjusting pedagogical prac-
tices to meet the needs of students and how they learn technology. Some technology
teachers work in relative isolation, with little support for innovation or change and few
incentives to improve their practice. Some of the best practices for teaching become
apparent when teachers reflect on their teaching practices and share information with
their colleagues. When teachers have time to work with colleagues to plan curricula,
have time to make changes in pedagogy to meet the needs of students, and have time
for personal reflection, they are better equipped to enhance their instruction and help
students learn technology. Too often, the necessity for change is placed on the shoul-
ders of teachers, and no support is provided. Subsequently, teachers are blamed when
goals and objectives are not met as expected. A system-wide method of providing teach-
ers with resources and support mechanisms needs to be in place to enable professional
growth.
Additionally, school districts, states/provinces/regions, and teacher preparation institu-
tions must be more proactive in recruiting new technology teachers. School districts
should identify exemplary students of technology in middle or high schools who have
the potential of becoming excellent technology teachers and encourage them to pursue
the necessary education.
Are learning environments, instructional strategies and materials, curricula, text-

books, and other materials chosen with the vision of technological literacy in mind
and reflective of “Program Standards?” The process of designing and constructing
technology programs presents challenges for teachers and administrators. The choice of
equipment, instructional materials, and other resources can be controversial and some-
times daunting. Technology teachers need time to prepare to work in a standards-based
environment, and they need time to “live” with new curricula to understand the new

environment’s strengths and weaknesses. By having this time, teachers are able to design STL and AETL both
high-quality units and lessons that enable them to teach effectively in a variety of con- incorporate
immediate and
texts. The design, selection, and construction of technology programs needs to be a
long-range goals
collaborative process that is thoughtful, informative, and interactive, with all parties for the study of
involved in the delivery of the program, including administrators, teachers, and teacher technology. These
support personnel. Likewise, teachers and administrators need to keep parents and com- two documents
munities apprised of program decisions. The community’s agreed-upon goals, along together lay the
with “Program Standards” (chapter 5) of AETL and the school, school district, or foundation for an
state/provincial/regional policies and procedures, are a rich resource for program input. ambitious but
attainable set of
Developers of programs should refer to current research on how students learn and how
expectations.
to know what students know and use the standards recommended in STL and AETL as
guides when making decisions.
Conclusion
STL and AETL both incorporate immediate and long-range goals for the study of tech- Now is the time
nology. These two documents together lay the foundation for an ambitious but attain- for all good
able set of expectations. Educators, families, policymakers, and others can use the professionals who
teach technology
recommendations in these two documents to guide the decisions they make in every-
to come together
thing from reforming laboratory-classroom practices to establishing school, school dis- to see the vision
trict, or state/provincial/regional programs for the study of technology. Achieving these come alive for the
standards requires clear goals and the active participation of all concerned. Realizing the good of all
vision of STL and AETL requires standards-based content, student assessment that is students and the
aligned with curricular goals, enhanced preparation for teachers and opportunities for future.
teacher professional growth, and programs for the study of technology that embrace
high-quality instructional materials and facilities. The task ahead is difficult, but it is
one that should be embraced and approached with the understanding that it can be
done. Now is the time for all good professionals who teach technology to come together
to see the vision come alive for the good of all students and the future.

A-H
APPENDICES
A P P E N D I X
A History of
TfAAP
History of Technology for All Americans Project
A
dvancing Excellence in Technological Literacy: Student Assessment, Professional
Development, and Program Standards (AETL) is the third and final phase of the
Technology for All Americans Project (TfAAP), which was created by the
International Technology Education Association (ITEA) and funded by the National
Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA). Development and refinement of AETL took place over three years
(2000–2003) and involved hundreds of experts in the fields of technology, mathemat-
ics, science, engineering, and other disciplines. Their input was attained through vari-
ous methods, including hearings, Web-based electronic document review, and
individual reviews through the mail and in person.
The standards in AETL address student assessment, professional development, and pro-
gram enhancement. The TfAAP Advisory Group provided valuable counsel to the proj-
ect staff. These people have backgrounds in standards creation as well as infusion and
implementation of standards across disciplines. Their support has sustained the vision
of ITEA and TfAAP that all students can and need to become technologically literate.
The TfAAP Standards Writing Team provided detailed input in fashioning the initial
draft of AETL, and their continued review and input have added strength and quality to
the final document. Three formal drafts of AETL were developed and reviewed before a
final draft was prepared in autumn 2002.
The standards in AETL are based on Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the
Study of Technology (STL), which was developed by TfAAP for ITEA from 1996–2000.
In addition to developing AETL in 2000–2003, TfAAP has devoted much of its time to
TfAAP Standards Writing Team

108 APPENDIX A/History
implementing STL. Six Standards Specialists gave numerous presentations and work-
shops around the country on implementing STL.
Another goal of the project in Phase III was to gain a perspective on “What Americans
Think About Technology.” TfAAP partnered with the Gallup Organization to conduct
a survey of 1,000 households in the United States. A committee of question writers pro-
vided valuable input, and Dr. Lowell Rose, Emeritus Executive Director of Phi Delta
Kappa, served as a consultant to guide question development.
During preparation of AETL, the TfAAP staff worked closely with the Council for
Technology Teacher Education (CTTE) and the National Council for Accreditation of
Teacher Education (NCATE) to develop the ITEA/CTTE/NCATE Curriculum
Standards. Many of the standards developed by ITEA/CTTE/NCATE are based on
STL and “Professional Development Standards” (chapter 4) of AETL. The
ITEA/CTTE/NCATE standards will be finalized in 2003 and made available to col-
leges and universities for use in accrediting teacher preparation programs in the United
States.
Timeline for the Technology for All Americans Project
Phase I (October 1994 – September 1996)
Technology for All Americans: A Rationale and Structure for the Study of Technology
developed and published.
Phase II (October 1996 – September 2000)
Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology developed
and published.
Phase III (October 2000 – September 2003)
Advancing Excellence in Technological Literacy: Student Assessment, Professional
Development, and Program Standards developed and published.
February 5, 2000: Advisory Group meeting in Washington, DC.
Fall 2000 – Spring 2001: Initial research on AETL standards by TfAAP staff.
Fall 2000: Standards Specialists organized and trained.
June 27 – July 1, 2000: Draft 1 of AETL developed by Standards Writing
Team in Salt Lake City, UT.
February 6–7, 2000: Gallup Poll question committee meeting in Chantilly, VA.
August 31, 2001: Advisory Group meeting in Washington, DC.
May – June, 2001: Gallup survey conducted.
July – December, 2001: Fourteen national hearings on AETL Draft 1.
October – November, 2001: Electronic document review of AETL Draft 1 via
ITEA’s Web page (16 focus groups plus additional individual reviews).
July – November, 2001: Gallup Poll data analyzed and draft of report written.
Fall 2000 – June 2002: Standards Specialists workshops and presentations.
January 17, 2002: Release of Gallup Poll Report titled, “ITEA/Gallup Poll
Reveals What Americans Think About Technology” at a National Academies
symposium in Washington, DC.
APPENDIX A/History 109

January – March, 2002: AETL Draft 1 input analyzed, and Draft 2 created.
March, 2002: Three hearings at the ITEA Conference in Columbus, OH on
AETL Draft 2.
April, 2002: AETL Draft 2 mailed to focus groups and individuals for review.
May – August, 2002: AETL Draft 2 input analyzed, and Draft 3 created.
July, 2002: Five regional workshops on implementing STL were conducted by
the Standards Specialists.
September, 2002: Draft 3 of AETL mailed to reviewers for input.
September, 2002: Advisory Group meeting in Washington, DC.
October, 2002: Review of AETL standards and guidelines by Southeastern
Technology Education Conference participants, Raleigh, NC.
October – November, 2002: AETL Draft 3 input analyzed, and final draft
created.
November 2002 – January 2003: AETL layout and typesetting completed.
January – February, 2003: AETL printed.
February, 2003: Standards Specialists organize for AETL implementation,
Raleigh, NC.
March, 2003: AETL released at ITEA Conference in Nashville, TN.

Spring 2003: Fourth and final Advisory Group meeting in Washington, DC.
March – April, 2003: Continued dissemination of AETL.
March – September, 2003: Standards Specialists and TfAAP staff continued
AETL and STL implementation in various regions, states, and localities.
110 APPENDIX A/History

A P P E N D I X
B Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
The following lists have been compiled as carefully as possible from our records. We
apologize to anyone who was inadvertently omitted or whose name, title, or affiliation
is incorrect. Inclusion on these lists does not imply endorsement of this document.
Technology for All Americans Dora Anderson, Advertising/Exhibits Coordinator

Project Staff Sima Govani, Accounts Receivable Coordinator
William E. Dugger, Jr., DTE, Director
Shelli Meade, Editor and Contributing Writer International Technology Education
Association Board of Directors
Crystal Nichols, Editorial Assistant and Data
Coordinator Michael Wright, DTE, President, Central
Missouri State University, MO
Lisa Delany, Senior Research Associate and
Contributing Writer George Willcox, President-Elect, Virginia
Department of Education, VA
TfAAP staff generously supported each step of the
development process. Also, special thanks to Pam David McGee, DTE, Past-President, Haltom
Newberry and Jodie Altice, former staff members, Middle School, TX
for their enthusiasm and devotion to the project.
Kendall Starkweather, DTE, Executive Director,
ITEA, VA
International Technology
Larry Claussen, TECA Director, Wayne State
Education Association Staff College, NE
Kendall Starkweather, DTE, Executive Director Chuck Linnell, TECC Director, Clemson
University, SC
Leonard Sterry, Senior Curriculum Associate
John Ritz, DTE, CTTE Director, Old Dominion
Katie de la Paz, Communications/Publications
University, VA
Coordinator
Cyril King, DTE, ITEA-CS Director, SE
Catherine James, Web Site/Computer Operations
Education and Library Board, Northern Ireland
Coordinator
Steve Price, Region 1 Director, Riverdale High
Phyllis Wittmann, Accountant
School, GA
Kathie Cluff, Assistant Editor/Publications
Andy Stephenson, DTE, Region 2 Director, Scott
Specialist
County High School, KY
Michelle Judd, Coordinator of Meeting Planning
Ben Yates, DTE, Region 3 Director, Central
Barbara Mongold, Publications Services Missouri State University, MO
Coordinator
Joseph Scarcella, Region 4 Director, California
Moira Wickes, Database Coordinator/Registrar State University, San Bernardino, CA
Lari Price, Member Services Coordinator
APPENDIX B/Acknowledgements 111

Advisory Group
Rodger Bybee, Executive Director, Biological Professional Development
Sciences Curriculum Study, CO
Michael Daugherty, Illinois State University, IL,
Rodney Custer, DTE, Chair, Department of Chair
Technology, Illinois State University, IL
Anna Sumner, Westside Middle School, NE,
Elsa Garmire, Professor of Engineering, Recorder
Dartmouth College, NH
Marie Hoepfl, Appalachian State University, NC
Gene Martin, Special Assistant to the Vice
President of Academic Affairs for Extended Ethan Lipton, California State University, Los
Learning, Southwest Texas State University, TX Angeles, CA
JoEllen Roseman, Executive Director, American Pamela Matthews, National Education

Association for the Advancement of Science, Association, Washington, DC
Washington, DC Diana Rigden, Council for Basic Education,
Linda Rosen, Senior Vice President, Education, Washington, DC
National Alliance of Business, Washington, DC Anthony Schwaller, DTE, St. Cloud State
James Rubillo, Executive Director, National University, MN
Council of Teachers of Mathematics, VA Jack Wescott, DTE, Ball State University, IN
Gerald Wheeler, Executive Director, National Jane Wheeler, Monte Vista Elementary School,
Science Teachers Association, VA CA
Pat White, Executive Director, Triangle Coalition
for Science and Technology Education,
Washington, DC
Program
Michael Wright, DTE, Coordinator of
Technology and Occupational Education, Central Mark Wilson, North Dakota Vocational and
Missouri State University, MO Technical Education, ND, Chair
Pat Foster, Central Connecticut State University,
Standards Team CT, Recorder
Barry Burke, DTE, Montgomery County Public
Student Assessment Schools, MD
Rod Custer, DTE, Illinois State University, IL, David Bouvier, DTE, Framingham Public
Chair Schools, MA
Robert Wicklein, DTE, University of Georgia, Michael De Miranda, Colorado State University,
GA, Recorder CO
Joseph D’Amico, Educational Research Service, Joan Haas, Conway Middle School, FL
VA
Steve Shumway, Brigham Young University, UT
Richard Kimbell, Goldsmiths College, University
of London, United Kingdom Doug Wagner, Manatee County Schools, FL
Mike Lindstrom, Anoka-Hennepin Educational Gary Wynn, DTE, Greenfield-Central High
Service Center, MN School, IN
Leonard Sterry, ITEA’s Center to Advance the
Teaching of Technology and Science, VA Standards Specialists
Charles Pinder, Northern Kentucky University, Elazer Barnette, North Carolina Agricultural and
KY Technical State University, NC
Steve Price, Riverdale High School, GA Barry Burke, DTE, Montgomery County Public
Schools, MD
James Rice, Marquette University, WI
112 APPENDIX B/Acknowledgements

Michael Daugherty, Illinois State University, IL Hidden Valley Middle School,
Ed Reeve, Utah State University, UT Roanoke County, VA
Steve Shumway, Brigham Young University, UT Jerry Weddle, Technology
Supervisor
Anna Sumner, Westside Middle School, NE
David Blevins, Principal
Robert Warren, Technology Teacher
ITEA and TfAAP wish to thank the National Ottobine Elementary School,
Science Foundation (NSF) and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Dayton, VA
for their funding of Phase III of the project. Romana Pence, Principal
Special appreciation is given to Gerhard Salinger
of NSF and Frank Owens of NASA for their Bonnie Berry, Teacher
advice and input. We appreciate all the support (kindergarten)
and help provided to TfAAP by the late Pam
Mountjoy of NASA; we miss her continued sup- McGaheysville Elementary School,
port and encouragement. McGaheysville, VA
ITEA and TfAAP would like to express apprecia- Bill Rauss, Principal
tion to Jill Russell for serving as our evaluator
Janis Detamore, Teacher (2nd and
throughout Phase III.
5th grade)
Thanks also to Ed Scott and Tony Olivis at Circle Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Graphics for designing and laying out AETL.
R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company printed the and State University,
standards; special thanks to T.J. Beason for her Blacksburg, VA
patience in coordinating this process.
Mark Sanders, Associate Professor
Special appreciation is given to Kendall and Program Leader, Technology
Starkweather, Leonard Sterry, Katie de la Paz, and Education
Kathie Cluff for their editorial help and advice on
the overall document. James LaPorte, Associate Professor,
Technology Education
We would like to thank Julia Bussey for providing
Sharon Brusic, Assistant Professor,
many of the photographs for this document. She
Technology Education
and Shelli Meade made trips to various schools to
take pictures of elementary and secondary school Julia Bussey, Doctoral Graduate
students working in laboratory-classrooms in the Teaching Assistant
study of technology as well as educators and
teacher candidates engaged in professional Doug Koch, Doctoral Graduate
development. Teaching Assistant
Special appreciation is given to the following per- Terri Varnado, Doctoral Graduate
sonnel at the schools listed below for allowing us Teaching Assistant
to take photographs for AETL: Publications and Electronic
Communications Unit,
University Relations
Blacksburg Middle School,
Virginia Technology
Blacksburg, VA
Education Association
Gary McCoy, Principal Summer Conference 2002
Jeffrey Cichocki, Technology Williamsburg, VA
Teacher

Reviewers
We would like to express appreciation to all of the reviewers of Advancing Excellence in
Technological Literacy: Student Assessment, Professional Development, and Program
Standards. This list includes people from around the world who provided valuable
input that strengthened the document. There are many different backgrounds repre-
sented in this group of reviewers, who came from the ranks of elementary and sec-
ondary teachers; supervisors at the local and state levels; teacher educators;
administrators, including elementary and secondary school principals; school system
superintendents; engineers; scientists; parents; school board members; international
leaders in technology education; and others. AETL has been improved in its iterations
as a result of the comments and recommendations of all reviewers.
Andrew Abner Karen Batchelor Chad Brecke

Don Abner Gordon Batsell Bruce Breilein
Phil Adamson Thomas Beadle Danae Broning
Lamont Adger Larry Bell E.B. Brooks

Daniel Airoldi Thomas Bell Jeanne Brown
Cliff Akujobi Andrew Benson John Brown
Bryan Albrecht Adrian Bernagozzi Nathan Brubaker
N. Creighton Alexander Joe Berthelsen Barry Burke
Cynthia Allen William F. Bertrand John Burns
Clifford Amen Bill Betzen Joe Busby
Tim Amlie Rick Bird Duane Bushey
Keith Anderson Richard Blais Jerry Busick
Scott Anderson Bill Blough Julia Bussey
Michael Bachman Dennis Bohmont Rodger Bybee
Richard Bacon Gary Bolyard Thomas Cannito
Joe Baker Brian Bonacquisti Roger Cantor
Rick Baker Paul Bond Phillip Cardon
Jerry Balistreri Barry Borakove David Carey
William Ball Brian Bordwell Dan Caron
Lori Banaszak Hollis Bostic Michael Carpenter
Mohamad Barbarji Robert Boston Tom Cary
Douglas Barber Joseph Boudreau Mike Cerallo
Ronald Barker David Bouvier Audrey Champagne
Elazer Barnette Ken Bowling Gene Chaplin
Denzil Barnhill Thomas Boylan Vincent Childress
Lynn Basham William L. Brannan Brad Christensen

Karen Christopherson Ed Denton John Forstrom
Aaron Clark Paul DeRita Thomas Fournier
Craig Clark Travis Dethlefs Thomas Frawley
John Clark Steve Devendorf Don Frazier
Larry Claussen Dick Dieffenderfer Harold Fullam
Kathie Cluff C. Ray Diez Kendall Gadd
Kenneth Cochran Ralph Dlouhy Stan Gaier
Roy Colson Robert Dorn Philip Gaines
Leon Copeland Clyde Dorsett George Gallman
Larry Corey Wells Doty Hervey Galloway
Charles Corley Ron Downing Elsa Garmire
Arnall Cox Dennis Dubee Earl Gates
Sam Cox John DuBose Steve Gavlin
Michael Crawford Larry Dunekack Perry Gemmill
Mike Crepeau Steve Eaton Bart Gibson
Dan Culver Joel Ellinghuysen Anthony Gilberti
Julie Cummings Daniel Engstrom Doran Gillie
Tom Cummings Thomas Erekson Alan Glass
Roxanne Cunningham Cheryl Evanciew Steven Glockzin
Rodney Custer Mark Evans Sidney Gnewikow
Wayne Dallas Robert Falatic Noma Goodin
Grace Damerow Wendi Fannestock Morris Gordon
Joseph D’Amico Patricia Fazzi Douglas Gorham
Kevin Daney John Fecik Junius Gradney
Thomas Daughters Dennis Ferrari Laury Grant
Mike Daugherty Marc Finer Robert C. Gray
Paul David Dewayne Fintel Clifford Green
Tylon Davis Don Fischer Mark Greene
William Davis Edmond Fisher David Greer, Jr.
Walt Deal Frank Fitzgerald John Griego
Harvey Dean John Flanagan Kathy Griffin
Brad DeKanick John Flatt Jeffrey Grimmer
Katie de la Paz Brad Fleener Richard Grimsley
Miguel A. Delgado Gerald Florio Joel Groetsch
William DeLuca Jim Flowers Gary Gronquist
Donald Denico James Forrest Larry Grow

Bret Gunderson Patricia Hutchinson Brenda Lattanzi
Bruce Haan Joseph Huttlin Bruce J. Lavallee
Joan Haas Mohammed Isleem Carl Leiterman
Jim Hahn William Jackson John Leith
Carl Hall Steve Jacobson Joseph Leogrande
Mark Haltom Courtney Jenkins James Levande
Dave Halver Kurt Jensen Everton Lewis
Jerry Hamm Jerry Jewell Donald Libeau
John Hansen Charles Johnson Tung-I Lin
Robert Hanson Haldane Johnson Robert Lindemann
Linda Harpine Jody Johnson Lisa Lindner
Richard Harris Michael Johnson Mike Lindstrom
Jo Ann Hartge Alister Jones Chuck Linnell
Kelvin Hasch David Jurewicz Ethan B. Lipton
Larry Hatch Jim Kale Mike Livieri

Craig Haugsness Erv Kallstrom Dorian Lobdell
Bill Havice Moses Kariuki Mark Lockhart
Judy Hawthorn Tom Karns Franzie Loepp
W.J. Haynie Paul Kenney Roger Lord
Richard Heard Patricia Keydel Mary Lorenz
Carolyn Helm Kamaal Khazen Thomas Loudermilk
Gregory Hendricks Alan Kinnaman Gerald Lovedahl
T.J. Hendrickson Ken Kline Thomas Loveland
John Hickey Tony Korwin Joe Luciano
Roger Hill Randolph Kowalik John Lucy
Sam Hines Ernest Kozun, Jr. Peter Lund
Derrick Hintz John Kraljic Bethany Lupo
Marie Hoepfl Z.B. Kremens Brian Mabie
Harold Holley Thomas Kubicki Ken Maguire
Douglas Hotek Gerald Kuhn Mary Margosian
Daniel Householder John Kvartek Marco Margotta
Thomas Hughes Greg Laban Gene Martin
Van Hughes Henry Lacy Cathy Mason
Jim Hulmes Keith Landin Pamela Matthews
Akbav Humayun James LaPorte David J. Matuszak
Paul Hunt Sheila Larson Marianne Mayberry

Brian McAlister Dave Nelson Bill Pugh
Howard McAllister Michelle Nelson Patrick Pugh
Joe McCade Tim Nestrud Robert Pulito
Charlie McClure Keven Newton James Qualteri
James McCracken Jay Nix John Queck
Joni McCracken Annette Norris David Rabkin
Mary McCreary Susan Norris Sid Rader
James McCrystal Mark Nowak Gregg Ratliff
Alta McDaniel Johann Odom James Ray
David McGee Charley Olson Kecia Ray
Randy McGriff Glen Olson David Rayson
Donald McKay Wade Olson Philip Reed
Charlie McLaughlin Edward Orlowski Ed Reeve
Kelly McQuay Joseph Orr Stephen Reukauf
Jim Mecklenburg Michelann Ortloff David Rhea
Chintan Melita Mary Lou Oslund Richard Rios
Chris Merrill Jack Otstot John M. Ritz
Keith Mesedahl George Paige Melvin Robinson
Pete Meyer William Paige Dan Roden
Steve Meyer Helen Parke Duane Rogers
Howard Middleton Bob Parow George E. Rogers
Doug Miller Philip C. Paspalas Stephen Rogers
Gary Milsom Richard Penepacker Mark Rogstad
John Mitchell Randy Perkins Sharon Rookard
Hidetoshi Miyakawa Troy Peters Annette Rose
Mark Moll Richard Peterson Mike Rose
Robert Montesano John Petsch Linda Rosen
James Moon Dan Petrino Roy Rosnik
Mellissa Morrow Melvin Petteys James Rubillo
Carol Mortensen Kenneth Phillips Robert Ruby
Hans Mortensen Randal Pierce Bill Ruff
Ivan T. Mosley, Sr. Steven Pinch Jerred Russell
Brian Moye Gregory Pitonza Jill Russell
Mary Kay Myrmel Gennie Popper Joe Russell
Hassan Ndahi Paul Post Ernest Savage
Michael Nehring Tom Post Donald Schaer

Richard Schott Daniel Stotter Barry Walton
Dean Schultz Stephen Straight Jim Wandzilak
Anthony Schwaller Duane Strand Gene Waring
Rob Schwartz Mark Strange Kevin D. Webster
Michael Scott Leon Strecker Keith Welle
Jay Seiler David Stricker John Wells
Rich Seymour Tony Suba Kenneth Welty
Chuck Shafer Eric F. Suhr Rob Weneck
Jeff Sharp Ralph Suiter Robert Wenig
Harry Shealey Kazuhiro Sumi Bernie Wenner
Daniel Sherman Anna Sumner Jack Wescott
Tom Shown Ed Taylor Geoff Westervelt
Steve Shumway Jerianne Taylor Richard Weymer
Julie Sicks Panus Juris Terauds Roger Wheeler
Bob Simonson Victor Terry Pat White

John Simpkins Dennis Thomas Eric Wiebe
Bernard Singer John Thomas Fred Wiens
Jon Slaff Louisa Ann Thomas Enrique Wiggins
Clarence Smith Travis Thomas George Willcox
David Smith Chuck Tipton Michael Williams
Harold Smith, Jr. Don Todd Roger Williams
Kenneth Smith Thomas Toomey Susan Wolfe
Loren Smith Rich Totten David Wolff
William Snelson Harvey Tremper Dan Wood
Dennis Soboleski Llewellen Trott Richard Woolever
Thomas Spadoni, Jr. Steve Ullrich Gary Wynn
Yvonne Spicer John Vaglia Ben Yates
Don Springhetti Brigitte Valesey Sarah Yetter
Ed Stamper Tim VanSant William Youngfert
Kathleen Stansbury Sohne Van Selus Ronald Yuill
Kenneth Starkman Mark Vendettuoli Edward Zak
Kendall Starkweather Peter Vignogna John Zaner
Andy Stephenson Luis Villarreal Ahmad Zargari
Leonard Sterry Ken Volk Tom Zerr
John Stivers Doug Wagner David Zinn
Howard Stob Joseph Wagner Karen Zuga

Vignette Credits
Pages 28–29. Formative assessment: Using student feedback. Adapted from a vignette written by
Anna Sumner, Technology Teacher, Westside Middle School, Omaha, NE.
Pages 33–35. Summative assessment: Student product development portfolio. Adapted from a
vignette written by Mike Lindstrom, Assessment Facilitator, Anoka-Hennepin Educational Service
Center, Coon Rapids, MN; and Joe Nelson, Technology Education Department Leader, Champlin Park
High School, Champlin, MN.
Pages 50–51. Modeling professional practice. Adapted from a vignette written by Michael
Daugherty, Professor, Illinois State University, Normal, IL.
Pages 54–55. K–12 curriculum integration workshop. Adapted from a vignette written by James
Boe, Curriculum Development Specialist, Valley City State University, Valley City, ND.
Pages 65–67. Facilitating collaboration. Adapted from a vignette written by Donna Matteson,
Assistant Professor, Oswego State University of New York, Oswego, NY.
Page 76. A transformation, not a reformation: The need for district-wide vision and stakeholder buy
in. Adapted from a vignette written by W. David Greer, DTE, Program Director, Fort Worth
Independent School District, Fort Worth, TX.
Page 85. Data-based decision making. Adapted from a vignette written by John M. Ritz, DTE,
Professor, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA.
Pages 90–91. The study of technology: A cross-curricular perspective. Contributions by Bonnie B.

Berry, Kindergarten Teacher, Ottobine Elementary School, Dayton, VA; Janis Detamore, 2nd Grade
Teacher, McGaheysville Elementary School, McGaheysville, VA; Thomas Kaiser, Technology Education
Teacher, Maine East High School, Park Ridge, IL; Melvin Robinson, Technology and Engineering
Specialist, Utah State Office of Education, Salt Lake City, UT.

A P P E N D I X
C Listing of STL
Content Standards
Listing of STL Content Standards

The Nature of Technology
Standard 1. Students will develop an understanding of the characteristics and scope of
technology.
Standard 2. Students will develop an understanding of the core concepts of
technology.
Standard 3. Students will develop an understanding of the relationships among
technologies and the connections between technology and other fields
of study.
Technology and Society

Standard 4. Students will develop an understanding of the cultural, social, economic, and
political effects of technology.
Standard 5. Students will develop an understanding of the effects of technology on the
environment.
Standard 6. Students will develop an understanding of the role of society in the develop-
ment and use of technology.
Standard 7. Students will develop an understanding of the influence of technology on
history.
Design
Standard 8. Students will develop an understanding of the attributes of design.
Standard 9. Students will develop an understanding of engineering design.
Standard 10. Students will develop an understanding of the role of troubleshooting,
research and development, invention and innovation, and experimentation
in problem solving.
Abilities for a Technological World

Standard 11. Students will develop the abilities to apply the design process.
Standard 12. Students will develop the abilities to use and maintain technological products
and systems.
Standard 13. Students will develop the abilities to assess the impact of products and
systems.
The Designed World

Standard 14. Students will develop an understanding of and be able to select and use
medical technologies.
agricultural and related biotechnologies.
energy and power technologies.
information and communication technologies.
transportation technologies.
manufacturing technologies.
construction technologies.
120 APPENDIX C/STL Standards

A P P E N D I X
D Listing of AETL Standards
with Guidelines
Listing of AETL Standards with Guidelines
STUDENT ASSESSMENT STANDARDS:

Standard A-1: Assessment of student learning will be consistent with
Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology (STL).
Guidelines for meeting Standard A-1 require that teachers consistently
A. Administer comprehensive planning and development across disciplines.
B. Incorporate comprehensive planning and development across grade levels.
C. Include cognitive learning elements for solving technological problems.
D. Include psychomotor learning elements for applying technology.
E. Guide student abilities to operate within the affective domain, utilizing perspective,
empathy, and self assessment.
Standard A-2: Assessment of student learning will be explicitly

matched to the intended purpose.
A. Formulate a statement of purpose for assessment tools.
B. Identify and consider the intended audience in designing assessment tools and reporting
assessment data.
C. Utilize fair and equitable student assessment methods.
D. Establish valid and reliable measurements that are reflective of classroom experiences.
Standard A-3: Assessment of student learning will be systematic and derived

from research-based assessment principles.
A. Remain current with research on student learning and assessment.
B. Devise a formative assessment plan.
C. Establish a summative assessment plan.
D. Facilitate enhancement of student learning.
E. Accommodate for student commonality and diversity.
F. Include students in the assessment process.
Standard A-4: Assessment of student learning will reflect practical contexts

consistent with the nature of technology.
A. Incorporate technological problem solving.
B. Include variety in technological content and performance-based methods.
C. Facilitate critical thinking and decision making.
D. Accommodate for modification to student assessment.
E. Utilize authentic assessment.
Standard A-5: Assessment of student learning will incorporate data collection

for accountability, professional development, and program enhancement.
A. Maintain data collection for accountability.
B. Use student assessment results to help guide professional development decisions.
C. Use student assessment results to help guide program enhancement decisions.
APPENDIX D/AETL Standards with Guidelines 121

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
Standard PD-1: Professional development will provide teachers

with knowledge, abilities, and understanding consistent with
Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of
Technology (STL).
Guidelines for meeting Standard PD-1 require that professional development providers
consistently prepare teachers to
A. Understand the nature of technology.
B. Recognize the relationship between technology and society.
C. Know the attributes of design.
D. Develop abilities for a technological world.
E. Develop proficiency in the designed world.
Standard PD-2: Professional development will provide teachers with

educational perspectives on students as learners of technology.
A. Incorporate student commonality and diversity to enrich learning.
B. Provide cognitive, psychomotor, and affective learning opportunities.
C. Assist students in becoming effective learners.
D. Conduct and use research on how students learn technology.
Standard PD-3: Professional development will prepare teachers to design

and evaluate technology curricula and programs.
A. Design and evaluate curricula and programs that enable all students to attain
B. Design and evaluate curricula and programs across disciplines.
C. Design and evaluate curricula and programs across grade levels.
D. Design and evaluate curricula and programs using multiple sources of information.
Standard PD-4: Professional development will prepare teachers to use

instructional strategies that enhance technology teaching, student learning,
A. Coordinate instructional strategies with curricula.
B. Incorporate educational (instructional) technology.
C. Utilize student assessment.
122 APPENDIX D/AETL Standards with Guidelines

Standard PD-5: Professional development will prepare teachers to design and
manage learning environments that promote technological literacy.
A. Design and manage learning environments that operate with sufficient resources.
B. Design and manage learning environments that encourage, motivate, and support student
learning of technology.
C. Design and manage learning environments that accommodate student commonality and
diversity.
D. Design and manage learning environments that reinforce student learning and teacher
instruction.
E. Design and manage learning environments that are safe, appropriately designed, and well
maintained.
F. Design and manage learning environments that are adaptable.
Standard PD-6: Professional development will prepare teachers to be

responsible for their own continued professional growth.
A. Assume commitment to self assessment and responsibility for continuous professional

growth.
B. Establish a personal commitment to ethical behavior within the educational environment
as well as in private life.
C. Facilitate collaboration with others.
D. Participate in professional organizations.
E. Serve as advisors for technology student organizations.
F. Provide leadership in education.
Standard PD-7: Professional development providers will plan, implement, and

evaluate the pre-service and in-service education of teachers.
Guidelines for meeting Standard PD-7 require that professional development

providers consistently
A. Plan pre-service and in-service education for teachers.

B. Model teaching practices that teachers will be expected to use in their laboratory-
classrooms.
C. Evaluate professional development to assure that the needs of teachers are being met.
D. Support technology teacher preparation programs that are consistent with state/
provincial/regional and national/federal accrediting guidelines.
E. Provide teacher preparation programs, leading to licensure, that are consistent with AETL
and STL.
F. Provide in-service activities to enhance teacher understanding of technological content,
instruction, and assessment.
G. Obtain regular funding for in-service professional development opportunities.
H. Create and implement mentoring activities at both in-service and pre-service levels.

PROGRAM STANDARDS (FOR TEACHERS):
Standard P-1: Technology program development will be consistent with
Guidelines for meeting Standard P-1 require that the teacher(s) responsible for the
A. Align program content with STL.
B. Align program content with school district, state/provincial/regional, and national/federal
standards in other academic areas.
C. Plan and develop the program across disciplines.
D. Plan and develop the program across grade levels.
E. Assure that the program incorporates suitable cognitive, psychomotor, and affective learn-
ing elements.
F. Promote adaptability for program enhancement.
Standard P-2: Technology program implementation will facilitate

A. Provide instruction that is consistent with research on how students learn technology.
B. Provide instruction that is designed to meet curricular goals and student needs.
C. Design and implement curricula that enable all students to attain technological literacy.
D. Develop student leadership opportunities.
Standard P-3: Technology program evaluation will ensure and facilitate

A. Develop and utilize evaluation that is consistent with standards and guidelines in “Program
Standards.”
B. Implement and use systematic, continuous evaluation.
C. Evaluate instruction on a regular basis.
D. Plan for program revision.
E. Accommodate for student commonality and diversity.
F. Utilize effective student assessment.
Standard P-4: Technology program learning environments will facilitate

A. Create and manage learning environments that are supportive of student interactions and
student abilities to question, inquire, design, invent, and innovate.
B. Create and manage learning environments that are up-to-date and adaptable.
C. Implement a written, comprehensive safety program.
D. Promote student development of knowledge and abilities that provides for the safe appli-
cation of appropriate technological tools, machines, materials, and processes.
E. Verify that the number of students in the technology laboratory-classroom does not exceed
its capacity.
Standard P-5: Technology program management will be provided by designated

personnel at the school, school district, and state/provincial/regional levels.
management of the technology program(s) consistently
A. Develop and use action plans based on STL.
B. Maintain data collection for accountability.
C. Market and promote the study of technology.
124 APPENDIX D/AETL Standards with Guidelines
PROGRAM STANDARDS (FOR ADMINISTRATORS):
Standard P-1: Technology program development will be consistent with

Guidelines for meeting Standard P-1 require that administrators responsible for establishing
the cross-curricular technology program consistently
G. Stipulate that content be aligned with STL.
H. Mandate instruction in the study of technology as part of the core educational experience
for all students.
I. Advocate content that complements school district, state/provincial/regional, and
national/federal standards in other academic areas.
J. Assure that the study of technology occurs across disciplines.
K. Assure that the study of technology occurs across grade levels.
L. Promote adaptability to enhance the study of technology.
Standard P-2: Technology program implementation will facilitate
E. Employ licensed teachers to deliver technology content.
F. Support sustained professional growth and development of all educators.
G. Encourage instruction that is consistent with research on how students learn technology.
H. Advocate instruction that is designed to meet curricular goals and student needs.
I. Commit to the recruitment of technologically competent teachers.
J. Encourage all teachers to develop student leadership opportunities.
Standard P-3: Technology program evaluation will ensure and facilitate
G. Assure that evaluation is consistent with standards and guidelines in “Program Standards.”
H. Employ systematic, continuous evaluation.
I. Encourage evaluation of instruction on a regular basis.
J. Plan for program revision.
Standard P-4: Technology program learning environments will facilitate
F. Provide learning environments that are designed to facilitate delivery of STL and satisfy
“Program Standards.”
G. Provide learning environments that are safe, up-to-date, and adaptable.
H. Ensure that the number of students in a dedicated technology laboratory-classroom does
not exceed its capacity.
I. Provide elementary school classrooms with adequate physical space for teaching technology.
J. Provide dedicated technology laboratory-classrooms in middle and high schools with a
minimum allotment of 100 square feet per pupil, inclusive of safe ancillary space.
Standard P-5: Technology program management will be provided by designated
personnel at the school, school district, and state/provincial/regional levels.
Guidelines for meeting Standard P-5 require that administrators responsible for the
management of the cross-curricular technology program consistently
D. Develop and use action plans based on STL.
E. Maintain data collection for accountability.
F. Market and promote the study of technology.
G. Provide funding, support, and resources to accomplish missions, goals, and curricular objectives.
H. Align technology programs with state/provincial/regional accreditation systems.
I. Establish articulated and integrated technology programs district wide.
J. Establish and utilize a management system.
K. Support professional technology organization engagement by teachers and management
personnel.
L. Provide resources and opportunities to support technology teachers and other content area
teachers in the teaching and learning process.
A P P E N D I X
E Correlation
Chart
Correlation Chart
To increase the usability of Advancing Excellence in Technological Literacy (AETL), cor-

relations within and between the standards in AETL and STL are identified in the chart
that follows. Such referencing indicates direct relationships (red type) and indirect rela-
tionships (black type) within and between these sets of standards.
This chart represents the perspective of TfAAP staff, who have interacted with the stan-
dards from a visionary point of view. ITEA recognizes that other correlations are possi-
ble, and this chart is, by no means, intended to be all-inclusive. ITEA welcomes further
study and research to develop a more comprehensive correlative chart with and between
AETL and STL as well as standards in other disciplines.
126 APPENDIX E/Correlation Chart

Student Assessment Standards
Refer to Refer to
Standard / Student Professional Refer to
Guideline Assessment Development Program
Identification Standard Standard Standard Refer to STL
A-1: CONSISTENCY WITH STL
Standard A-1: A-2, A-3, A-4 PD-1, PD-3 P-1, P-3
Guideline A: A-2C, D PD-1A – E P-1B, C, I, J Standard 3
PD-3A, B, D P-3B
Guideline B: A-2C, D PD-1A – E P-1A, D, G, H, K Standards 1–20
PD-3A, C, D P-3B
Guideline C: A-2C, D PD-1A – E P-1A, E, G Standards 1–10
A-4A, C PD-3A Standards 14–20
Guideline D: A-2C, D PD-1A – E P-1A, E, G Standards 11–20
A-4A, B PD-3A
Guideline E: A-2C, D PD-1A – E P-1A, E, G Standards 1–7
A-4C PD-3A Standards 14–20
A-2: INTENDED PURPOSE
Standard A-2: A-1, A-3 PD-3 P-3
Guideline A: A-3B, C P-3F Standards 1–20
Guideline B: P-3F
Guideline C: A-1A – E PD-3D P-3E, F
A-3B, C, E, F
Guideline D: A-1A – E PD-3D P-3F
A-3: RESEARCH-BASED ASSESSMENT PRINCIPLES
Standard A-3: A-1, A-2 PD-2, PD-3 P-3 Standards 1–20
Guideline A: PD-2D
PD-3D
Guideline B: A-2A, C PD-3D P-3B, C, H, I
Guideline C: A-2A, C PD-3D P-3B, H
Guideline D: PD-2A, C P-3C, F, I
Guideline E: A-2C PD-2A P-3E
Guideline F: A-2C PD-2C P-3F
A-4: PRACTICAL CONTEXTS
Standard A-4: A-1 PD-1, PD-3 P-1, P-3
Guideline A: A-1C, D PD-1A – E P-1A, E, G Standards 1–20
PD-3A
Guideline B: A-1D PD-1A – E P-1A, E, G Standards 1–20
PD-3A
Guideline C: A-1C, E PD-1A – C, E P-1A, E, G Standards 1–10
PD-3A Standards 14–20
Guideline D: PD-1A – E P-1F, L
PD-3D P-3D, J
Guideline E: PD-3A
A-5: DATA COLLECTION
Standard A-5: A-1 – A-4 PD-3, PD-7 P-1 – P-5
Guideline A: PD-3A – D P-3B, G, H
Guideline B: PD-7A, F
Guideline C: PD-3A – D P-3B, D, G, H, J
APPENDIX E/Correlation Chart 127

Professional Development Standards
Refer to Refer to
PD-1: CONSISTENCY WITH STL
Standard PD-1: A-1, A-4 PD-2 – PD-5 P-1
Guideline A: A-1A – E PD-2B – D P-1A, C – F Standards 1–3
A-4A – C, D PD-3A – C
PD-5B, F
Guideline B: A-1A – E PD-2B – D P-1A, C – F Standards 4–7
A-4A – D PD-3A – C
PD-5B, F
Guideline C: A-1A – E PD-2B – D P-1A, C – F Standards 8–10
A-4A – D PD-3A – C
PD-5B, F
Guideline D: A-1A – E PD-2B – D P-1A, C – F Standards 11–13
A-4A, B, D PD-3A – C
PD-5B, F
Guideline E: A-1A – E PD-2B – D P-1A, C – F Standards 14–20
A-4A – D PD-3A – C
PD-5B, F
PD-2: STUDENTS AS LEARNERS

Standard PD-2: A-3 PD-1, PD-3–PD-5 P-2, P-4
Guideline A: A-3D, E
Guideline B: PD-1A – E P-2A, C
PD-3A P-4A, D Standards 1–20
PD-4A, C
PD-5B
Guideline C: A-3D, F PD-1A – E P-2A, D
PD-4A, C
Guideline D: A-3A PD-1A – E P-2A
PD-3D
PD-3: CURRICULA AND PROGRAMS
Standard PD-3: A-1 – A-5 PD-1, PD-2 P-1 – P-5
Guideline A: A-1A – E PD-1A – E P-1A, C – E Standards 1–20
A-4A – C, E PD-2B P-2A, C
A-5A, C P-3A – C, F
P-4A, D
Guideline B: A-1A PD-1A – E P-1B, C Standard 3
A-5A, C P-2C
P-3A, B, F
Guideline C: A-1B PD-1A – E P-1A, D Standards 1–20
A-5A, C P-2C
P-3A, B, F
Guideline D: A-1A, B PD-2D P-1A, B, D Standards 1–20
A-2C, D P-3A, B, F
A-3A – C P5-B
A-4D
A-5A, C
PD-4: INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES
Standard PD-4: PD-1, PD-2 P-2 Standards 1–20
Guideline A: PD-2B, C P-2B
Guideline B:
Guideline C: PD-2B, C

Refer to Refer to
PD-5: LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
Standard PD-5: PD-1, PD-2 P-4 Standards 1–20
Guideline A: P-4B
Guideline B: P-1A – E P-4A
PD-2B
Guideline C:
Guideline D: PD-2C P-4A
Guideline E: P-4C – E
Guideline F: PD-1A – E P-4B
PD-6: CONTINUED PROFESSIONAL GROWTH
Standard PD-6: PD-1 – PD-5
Guideline A:
Guideline B:
Guideline C:
Guideline D:
Guideline E:
Guideline F:
PD-7: PRE-SERVICE AND IN-SERVICE
Standard PD-7: A-5 PD-1 – PD-6
Guideline A: A-5B
Guideline B:
Guideline C:
Guideline D:
Guideline E:
Guideline F: A-5B
Guideline G:
Guideline H:

Program Standards
Refer to Refer to
P-1: CONSISTENCY WITH STL
Standard P-1: A-1, A-4 PD-1, PD-3 P-2 – P-5
Guideline A: A-1A – E PD-1A – E P-2B, C, H Standards 1–20
A-4A – C PD-3A, C, D P-3F
P-4A, F
Guideline B: A-1A PD-3B, D P-2B, H
P-3F
Guideline C: A-1A PD-1A – E P-2C Standard 3
PD-3A, B P-3B, F, H
Guideline D: A-1B PD-1A – E P-2C Standards 1–20
PD-3A, C, D P-3B, F, H
Guideline E: A-1C – E PD-1A –E P-2A, C, G Standards 1–20
A-4A – C PD-3A P-3F
P-4A
Guideline F: A-4D PD-1A – E P-3D, F, J
P-4B, G
Guideline G: A-1B – E P-2B, C, H Standards 1–20
A-4A – C P-4A, D
Guideline H: A-1A, B P-2C, E, I
P-4A, D, I, J
Guideline I: A-1A P-2B
Guideline J: A-1A P-2C Standards 3
Guideline K: A-1B P-2C Standards 1–20
Guideline L: A-4D P-3D
P-4B
P-2: IMPLEMENTATION
Standard P-2: PD-2 – PD-4 P-1, P-4, P-5
Guideline A: PD-2B, C, D P-1E
PD-3A P-4A
PD-4A
Guideline B: P-1A, B, G, I Standards 1–20
P-4F
Guideline C: PD-2B P-1A, C, D, E, G, Standards 1–20
PD-3A, B, C H, J, K
P-4F, I, J
Guideline D: PD-2C P-5C, F
Guideline E: P-1H
P-4I, J
Guideline F:
Guideline G: P-1E Standards 1–20
P-4A
Guideline H: P-1A, B, G
Guideline I: P-1H
P-5C
Guideline J: P-5C
P-3: EVALUATION
Standard P-3: A-1 – A-5 PD-3 P-1, P-5 Standards 1–20
Guideline A: PD-3A, B, C, D P-5B
Guideline B: A-1A, B PD-3A, B, C, D P-1C, D
A-3B, C P-5B
A-5A, C
Guideline C: A-3B, D PD-3A P-5B

Refer to Refer to
Guideline D: A-4D P-1F, L
A-5C
Guideline E: A-2C
A-3E
Guideline F: A-2A – D PD-3A, B, C, D P-1A – F
A-3F P-5B
Guideline G: A-5A, C P-5B, E
Guideline H: A-3B, C P-1C, D
A-5A, C P-5B, E
Guideline I: A-3B, D P-5B, E
Guideline J: A-4D P-1F
A-5C
P-4: LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
Standard P-4: PD-2, PD-5 P-1, P-2, P-5 Standards 1–20
Guideline A: PD-2B P-1A, E, G, H
PD-3A P-2A, G
PD-5B, D
Guideline B: PD-5A, F P-1F, L
Guideline C: PD-5E
Guideline D: PD-2B P-1G, H
PD-3A
PD-5E
Guideline E: PD-5E
Guideline F: P-1A Standards 1–20
P-2B, C
Guideline G: P-1F
Guideline H:
Guideline I: P-1H
P-2C
Guideline J: P-1H
P-2C
P-5: MANAGEMENT
Standard P-5: A-5 PD-3 P-1 – P-4
Guideline A: Standards 1–20
Guideline B: A-5A, C PD-3D P-3A – C, F – I
Guideline C: P-2D, I, J
Guideline D: Standards 1–20
Guideline E: A-5A, C P-3G – I
Guideline F: P-2D
Guideline G:

A P P E N D I X
F References and
Resources
References and Resources
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. (2002). 2001 ABET accreditation yearbook: For accreditation
cycle ended September 30, 2001. Baltimore, MD: Author.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford
University Press: Author.
American Council on Industrial Arts Teacher Education. (1986). Implementing technology education yearbook.
Encino, CA: Glencoe Publishing Co.
American Industrial Arts Association. (1985). Standards for technology education programs. South Holland, IL: The
Goodheart-Willcox Company, Inc.
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (2000). Making sense of integrated science: A guide for high schools. Colorado
Springs: Author.
Black, P, & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta
Kappan, 80(2),139–48.
Bybee, R. (2000). Achieving technological literacy: A national imperative. The Technology Teacher, 60(1), 23-28.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (1987). Interstate new teacher assessment and support consortium. Retrieved
November 11, 2002, from http://www.ccsso.org/intasc.html.
Custer, R. (1994). Performance based education: Implementation handbook. Columbia, MO: Instructional Materials
Laboratory.
Daiber, R., Litherland, L., & Thode, T. (1991). Implementation of school-based technology education programs. In
M. J. Dyrenfurth & M. R. Kozak (Eds.), Technological literacy (CTTE 40th yearbook, pp. 187–211). Peoria,
IL: Glencoe Division, Macmillan/McGraw-Hill.
Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Geography Education Standards Project. (1994). Geography for life: National geography standards. Washington, DC:
National Geographic Society.
Gilberti, A.F. & Rouch, D.L. (Eds.). (1999). Advancing professionalism in technology education (CTTE 48th year-
book). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw Hill, Inc.
Guskey, T.R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Hoff, D. J. (2000). Teachers examining student work to guide curriculum, instruction. Education Week, 20(13),
1,14. Retrieved November 7, 2002 from http://www.edweek.org/ew/ew_printstory.cfm?slug=13work.h20.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2002). National educational technology standards. Retrieved
November 7, 2002 from http://cnets.iste.org/.
International Technology Education Association. (1996). Technology for all Americans: A rationale and structure for
the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
International Technology Education Association. (2000a). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of
technology. Reston, VA: Author.
International Technology Education Association. (2000b). Teaching technology: Middle school, Strategies for standards-
based instruction. Reston, VA: Author.
International Technology Education Association. (2001a). Exploring technology: A standards-based middle school model
course guide. Reston, VA: Author.
International Technology Education Association. (2001b). Teaching technology: High school, Strategies for standards-
based instruction. Reston, VA: Author.
International Technology Education Association. (2002a). Foundations of Technology: A standards-based high school
model course guide. Reston, VA: Author.
International Technology Education Association. (2002b). Technology starters: A standards-based guide. Reston, VA:
Author.
International Technology Education Association. (2003). Measuring progress: A guide to assessing students for techno-
logical literacy. Reston, VA: Author.
International Technology Education Association, Council of Technology Teacher Educators, & National Council
for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2003). ITEA/CTTE/NCATE curriculum standards. Reston, VA:
International Technology Education Association.
132 APPENDIX F/References and Resources

Kimbell, R. (1997). Assessing technology: International trends in curriculum and assessment. Philadelphia: Open
University Press.
Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4–14.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P.W., Love, N., & Stiles, K.E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of
science and mathematics (The National Institute for Science Education). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press,
Inc.
Loucks-Horsley, S., & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional development for teachers of mathematics
and science: The state of the scene. School Science and Mathematics, 99(5), 258–268.
Martin, E.E., (Ed.). (2000). Technology education for the 21st century (CTTE 49th yearbook). Peoria, IL:
Glencoe/McGraw Hill, Inc.
Marzano, R.J., Rickering, D.J., & Pollack, J.E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for
increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McGourty, J. & DeMeuse, K.P. (2001). The team developer: An assessment and skill building program. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
Meyer, S. (2000) Assessment strategies for standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology
[Electronic Monograph]. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.
Minnesota Department of Children, Families, & Learning. (1997). Proposed permanent rules relating to the gradua-
tion rule, profile of learning. St. Paul, MN: Author.
Moskal. B. M., & Leydens, J. A. (2000). Scoring rubric development: Validity and reliability. Practical assessment,
research, and evaluation. Retrieved November 11, 2002, from http://ericae.net/pare/getvn.asp?v=7&n=10.
National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council. (2002). Technically speaking: Why all Americans
need to know more about technology (A. Pearson & T. Young, Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
National Association of State Boards of Education. (2000). Assessing the state of state assessments. In The State
Education Standard, 1, 3–52.
National Board of Professional Teaching Standards. (2001). National board standards and certificates. Washington,
DC: Author.
National Business Education Association. (2000). Assessment in business education yearbook, 38. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2000). Professional standards for the accreditation of schools,
colleges, and departments of education. Washington, DC: Author.
National Council for History Standards. (1996). National standards for history. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for
History in the Schools.
National Council of Teachers of English. (1996). Standards for the English language arts. Urbana, IL: International
Reading Association and the National Council of Teachers of English.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA:
Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1995). Assessment standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA:
Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA:
Author.
National Education Goal Panel. (1997). Implementing academic standards. Papers commissioned by the National
Education Goals Panel. Retrieved November 11, 2002, from http://www.negp.gov/page1%2D13%2D5.htm.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (1999). Designing mathematics or science curriculum programs: A guide for using mathe-
matics and science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Bridging research and practice (M.S. Donovan, J.D. Bransford,
& J.W. Pellegrino, Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (J.D. Bransford, A.L.
Brown, & R.R. Cocking, Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2001a). Educating teachers of science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2001b). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment.
(J. Pellegrino, N. Chudowsky, & R. Glaser, Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
APPENDIX F/References and Resources 133

National Staff Development Council. (2001). Standards for staff development. Retrieved November 22, 2002, from
http://www.nsdc.org/library/standards2001.html.
Newberry, P. (2001). Technology education in the U.S.: A status report. The Technology Teacher, 61 (1), 8–12.
Retrieved April 4, 2002, from http://www.iteawww.org/.
Reed, W.C. & Ritz, J.M. (2000) Design for the future: Strategic planning for technology educators. [Electronic
Monograph]. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.
Rider, B.L. (Ed.). (1998) Diversity in technology education (CTTE 47th yearbook). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw Hill,
Inc.
Ritz, J.M., Israel, E.N., & Dugger, W.E. (Eds.). (2002). Standards for technological literacy: The role of teacher educa-
tion (CTTE 51st yearbook). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw Hill, Inc.
Rose, L.C., & Dugger, W.E. (2002). ITEA/Gallup poll reveals what Americans think about technology. Reston, VA:
International Technology Education Association.
Schmoker, M. & Marzano, R. J. (1999). Realizing the promise of standards-based education. Educational Leadership,
56, 17–21.
Schwaller, A.E. (2000). Knowing where you are going! In G. Eugene Martin (Ed.), Technology education for the 21st
century (CTTE 49th yearbook, pp. 189–193). New York: Glencoe McGraw-Hill.
Snyder, J.F., & Hales, J.A. (Eds.). (1986). Jackson’s Mill Industrial Arts Curriculum Theory. Muncie, IN: Center for
Implementing Technology Education, Department of Industry and Technology, Ball State University.
Sparks, D. (1997). Reforming teaching and reforming staff development: An interview with Susan Loucks-Horsley.
Journal of Staff Development, 18, 20–23.

U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century. (2001). Road map for national security: Imperative for change.
Retrieved April 4, 2002, from http://www.nssg.gov/PhaseIIIFR.pdf.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
134 APPENDIX F/References and Resources

A P P E N D I X
G Glossary
Glossary
The terms defined and described in this glossary apply specifically to Advancing
Excellence in Technological Literacy: Student Assessment, Professional Development, and
Program Standards (AETL). These terms may have broader meanings in different
contexts.
Some Acronyms Used in this Publication

AAAS American Association for the ITEA International Technology Education
Advancement of Science. Association.
ABET Accreditation Board for Engineering and ITEA-CS International Technology Education
Technology. Association-Council of Supervisors.
ACIATE American Council on Industrial Arts JETS Junior Engineering Technical Society.
Teacher Education. NAE National Academy of Engineering.
ACTE Association for Career and Technical NAS National Academy of Sciences.
Education. NASA National Aeronautics and Space
AETL Advancing Excellence in Technological Administration.
Literacy: Student Assessment, Professional NCATE National Council for Accreditation of
Development, and Program Standards. Teacher Education.
ASCD Association for Supervision and NCHS National Council of History Standards.
Curriculum Development.
NCTE National Council of Teachers of English.
ASME American Society of Mechanical
Engineers.
NCTM National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
BSCS Biological Sciences Curriculum Study.
NRC National Research Council.
CATTS Center to Advance the Teaching of
Technology and Science.
NSF National Science Foundation.
CTTE Council on Technology Teacher

NSTA National Science Teachers Association.
Education. STL Standards for Technological Literacy:
Content for the Study of Technology.
GESP Geography Education Standards Project.
IDSA Industrial Designers Society of America.
TECA Technology Education Collegiate
Association.
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic
Engineers.
TECC Technology Education Children’s Council.
ISTE International Society for Technology in

TfAAP Technology for All Americans Project
(ITEA).
Education.
TSA Technology Student Association.
General Glossary Terms

Ability — The capacity to demonstrate the Across disciplines — Inclusive of all con-
application of knowledge and skills. tent area classrooms as appropriate to
develop technological literacy.
Accountability — The quality of being
held answerable or responsible for, which Across grade levels — Inclusive of all
may make one liable to being called to grades specified in the identified levels of an
account. institution of learning, such as across grades
kindergarten through twelve for public
Accreditation — A system designed to
school.
attest to the act of accrediting or the state of
being accredited. An accreditation system Action plan — A management strategy that
would involve the approval of an institution includes program mission statements, goals,
of learning as meeting a prescribed standard short- and long-range strategic planning,
or standards through a review board. organization, evaluation, and responsibilities.
APPENDIX G/Glossary 135

Adequate — Sufficient to satisfy a require- what is considered worthy and necessary for
ment or meet a need as identified in a developing technological literacy. Traditional
standard. assessment, by contrast, relies on indirect or
stand-in tasks or questions that are more effi-
Administrators — Those professionals who
cient and simplistic than they are helpful in
manage any aspect of the educational sys-
determining what students actually know
tem, including supervisors or teachers as
and can do.
appropriate.
Barrier-free — Safely accessible for all stu-
Advisory committee — An organized body
dents, regardless of and with consideration
comprised of informed and qualified individ-
given to student interests, cultures, abilities,
uals with a specified responsibility to give
socio-economic backgrounds, and special
advice in the development of an idea or
needs.
process. Members may include parents, busi-
ness and industry personnel, local engineers, Best practices — What works and does not
technologists, and interested citizens. work in the laboratory-classroom.
Affective — Relating to, arising from, or Brainstorming — A method of shared
influencing feelings or emotions. problem solving in which all members of a
Alternative licensure — Licensure group spontaneously and in unrestrained dis-
obtained through means other than a tradi- cussion generate ideas.
tional undergraduate teacher preparation Checklist — An evaluative tool, which

program. could be in many forms, from a simple list-
Ancillary space — Adequate, safe, and con- ing to a formal quarterly report of progress.
venient storage that supplements laboratory- Class size — The number of students desig-
classroom space. nated to participate simultaneously as a
Application — Putting general knowledge group.
and skills to specific use. Co-curricular — The part of student edu-
Articulation/Articulated — A planned cational experience that exists in conjunc-
sequence of curricula and course offerings tion with the academic setting but also
from Grades K–12. The planned sequence outside of it.
may involve looking at course offerings Cognitive — 1. Having a basis in or being
across grade levels (vertical articulation) or reducible to empirical, factual knowledge.
the curriculum at a single grade level (hori- 2. A teaching method that recognizes the
zontal articulation). close relationship between what is known
Assessment principles — The basic truths, and what is to be learned. The teaching pro-
laws, or assumptions held in the use of assess- ceeds to build on the student’s knowledge
ment. The assessment principles that are in base by helping the student associate new
current use should enhance student learning; material with something that is familiar.
provide coherency of programs and courses; Collaboration — A cooperative relationship
identify expectations; ensure developmental that enables goals to be accomplished more
appropriateness, and be barrier-free. effectively and comprehensively than by
Attributes of design — Design characteris- individual efforts.
tics, which specify that design be purposeful, Communicate — To exchange thoughts and
based on certain requirements, systematic, ideas.
iterative, creative, and involve many possible
solutions. Constituent — A person or entity that
patronizes, supports, or offers representation.
Authentic assessment — An assessment
method that directly examines student per- Context/Contextual — The circumstances
formance on tasks that are directly related to in which an event occurs; a setting.
136 APPENDIX G/Glossary
Continuous — Uninterrupted in time, Curricula/Curriculum — Specification of
sequence, substance, or extent. the way content is delivered, including the
Continuous-improvement model — The structure, organization, balance, and
process of identifying educational goals; presentation of content in the laboratory-
implementing strategies designed to achieve classroom.
those goals; collecting data; analyzing the Curriculum development — The process
data in light of the goals and strategies; mak- of creating planned curriculum, pedagogy,
ing changes; and continuing the cycle. instruction, and presentation modes.
Control — An arrangement of chemical, Design — An iterative decision-making
electronic, electrical, and mechanical compo- process that produces plans by which
nents that commands or directs the manage- resources are converted into products or sys-
ment of a system. tems that meet human needs and wants, or
Core concepts — A set of ideas that make solve problems.
up the basis for the study of technology. The Developmentally appropriate — Intended
core concepts of technology as identified in to match the needs of students in the areas of
STL are systems, resources, requirements, cognition, physical activity, emotional
optimization and trade-offs, processes, and growth, and social adjustment.
controls.
Discipline — A specified realm of content.
Correlation — In AETL, it shows a relation-
ship within or between the standards in Dynamic — Ever changing and evolving.
AETL and STL. Educational (instructional)
Courses of study — A series of lessons, technology — The use of technological
activities, projects, or lectures that last a developments, such as computers, audio-
specified period of time and are designed visual equipment, and mass media, as tools
around a specified school subject. to enhance and optimize the teaching and
Critical thinking — The ability to acquire learning environment in all school subjects,
information, analyze and evaluate it, and including technology education.
reach a conclusion or answer by using logic Educators — Those professionals involved
and reasoning skills. in the teaching and learning process, includ-
Cross-curricular technology program — ing teachers and administrators.
Everything that affects student attainment of Effective — Produces the desired results
technological literacy, including content, pro- with efficiency.
fessional development, curricula, instruction,
student assessment, and the learning environ- Empathy — The ability to place oneself in
ment, implemented across grade levels and another person’s perspective in order to bet-
disciplines. The cross-curricular technology ter understand that person’s point of view.
program manages the study of technology in Empathy provides more complete under-
technology laboratory-classrooms and other standing than sympathy.
content area classrooms. Engineering — The profession of or work
Cultural context — The culture setting of performed by an engineer. Engineering
beliefs, traditions, habits, and values control- involves the knowledge of the mathematical
ling the behavior of the majority of the peo- and natural sciences (biological and physical)
ple in a social-ethnic group. These include gained by study, experience, and practice
the people’s ways of dealing with their prob- that are applied with judgment and creativity
lems of survival and existence as a continu- to develop ways to utilize the materials and
ing group. forces of nature for the benefit of mankind.
Cumulative assessment — Assessment Environment — The circumstances or con-
that is summative and usually occurs at the ditions that surround one in a setting, such
end of a unit, topic, project, or problem. as a laboratory-classroom.
Evaluation — Collection and processing of or a complement to acquiring, knowledge
information and data to determine how well and abilities.
a design meets the requirements and to pro-
Holistic — Emphasis of the whole, the over-
vide direction for improvements.
all, rather than analysis and separation into
Experiment — 1. A controlled test or inves- individual parts.
tigation. 2. Trying out new procedures, ideas,
or activities. Human adaptive systems — Systems that
exist within the human-made and natural
Explicitly — Clearly stated, leaving no world, including ideological, sociological,
ambiguity, and consequently able to be and technological systems.
understood and re-stated by others.
Informal observation — An assessment
External review — Evaluation by a group method that requires the teacher to observe
outside of the academic setting that can students at work and note how they interact,
provide an impartial review of the program solve problems, and ask questions.
for purposes of accountability and
improvement. Innovate — To renew, alter, or introduce
methods, ideas, procedures, or devices.
Extra-curricular — The part of student
educational experience that exists outside of In-service — 1. A practicing educator.
the academic setting but complements it. 2. Workshops, lectures, and other educa-
tional opportunities designed to keep prac-

Federal — Pertaining to a centralized gov- ticing professionals abreast of the latest
ernment, as in the United States. developments in their fields.
Formalized assessment — Assessment that Instruction — The actual teaching process
is strictly standardized to allow for accurate that the teacher employs to deliver the con-
comparisons. tent to all students.
Formative assessment — Ongoing assess- Integration — The process of bringing all
ment in the classroom. It provides informa- parts together into a whole.
tion to students and teachers to improve
teaching and learning. Invention — A new product, system, or
process that has never existed before, created
Goals — The expected end results. In by study and experimentation.
standards-based education, this can be
specifically applied to learning, instruction, Knowledge — 1. The body of truth, infor-
student assessment, professional develop- mation, and principles acquired by mankind.
ment, and program enhancement. 2. Interpreted information that can be used.
Group project — Specific organized work Laboratory-classroom — The environment
or research by two or more individuals who in which student learning takes place related
interact with and are influenced by each to the study of technology.
other.
Large-scale assessment — An assessment
Guided discovery — A form of instruction tool or method that involves a large number
in which learning takes place with a limited of students, such as across a state/province/
amount of teacher direction, and students region or nation.
are required to work out basic principles for
Leadership — Guidance, direction, and
themselves.
support.
Guideline — Specific requirement or
Learning environment —Formal or infor-
enabler that identifies what needs to be done
mal location where learning takes place that
in order to meet a standard.
consists of space, equipment, resources
Hands-on — Experiences or activities that (including supplies and materials), and safety
involve tacit doing as a means of acquiring, and health requirements.
Local — 1. The individual school. 2. The Narrative — Within AETL, narratives give
environment defined by the administrative the explanation of what is included in stan-
duties of a legally administered public agency dards and guidelines.
within a state or province.
National — Pertaining to the geographical
Long-range planning — Planning that extent of a centralized government, but not
spans weeks, months, or even years and may controlled by that single, centralized govern-
not commence until sometime in the future. ing body.
Macrosystem — A comprehensive, all- Objective — A specific item or procedure
inclusive system. that meets a designated goal.
Manageable class size — The number of Optimization — An act, process, or
students that (a) designated teacher(s) is/are methodology used to make a design or sys-
able to most effectively and safely guide, tem as effective or functional as possible
direct, and instruct. within the given criteria and constraints.
Manageable teacher schedule — A daily, Paper-and-pencil test — An assessment
weekly, monthly, semester, and term itiner- method that involves the use of questions
ary that allows teachers to accomplish goals that are typically answered in a timed setting
for teaching and learning. using paper and pencil.
Notations — Within AETL, notations con- Pedagogical — Of or relating to the delib-
sist of definitions, tables, quotations, and erately applied science/art, methodologies,
correlations. and strategies of teaching.
Mathematics — The study of abstract pat- Peer assessment — An assessment method
terns and relationships that results in an that involves the use of feedback from one
exact language used to communicate about student to another student, both students
them. being of similar standing (grade level).
Measurement — Collecting data in a quan- Performance — A demonstration of
tifiable manner. student-applied knowledge and abilities, usu-
Mentor — A mentor possesses knowledge ally by presenting students with a task or
and experience and shares pertinent informa- project and then observing, interviewing, and
tion, advice, and support while serving as a evaluating their solutions and products to
role model. assess what they actually know and can do.
Meta-cognition — Learners reflecting upon Performance-based method — A lesson or
their own process of thinking and learning. an activity that is designed to include perfor-
mances that involve students in the applica-
Mission — Organized goals and strategies tion of their knowledge.
for realizing goals that could be articulated in
a mission statement. Perspective — An individual point of view
based on experience.
Model — A visual, mathematical, or three-
dimensional representation in detail of an Policymakers — 1. Those representatives
object or design, often smaller than the origi- inside the educational, public, and govern-
nal. A model is often used to test ideas, make mental system who are responsible for public
changes to a design, and to learn more about education at school, school district, state/
what would happen to a similar, real object. provincial/regional, and national/federal
levels. 2. Those individuals, businesses, or
Modeling — The act of creating a model.
groups outside the public educational system
Modular environments — Areas that, by who influence educational policy. This may
design, allow for flexibility, as they can be include parents, clubs, organizations, busi-
arranged in a variety of ways to suit the pur- nesses, political activists, and any number of
pose of the specific activity or lesson. other citizens or groups of citizens who,
while not directly and legally responsible for service and in-service teacher education,
creating educational policy, nevertheless including teacher educators, supervisors, and
influence educational policy. administrators.
Portfolio — Formal or informal, systematic, Program — Everything that affects student
and organized collection of student work learning, including content, professional
that includes results of research, successful development, curricula, instruction, student
and less successful ideas, notes on proce- assessment, and the learning environment,
dures, and data collected. A portfolio may be implemented across grade levels.
in many forms, from photographs depicting
Program permeability — The vision
student growth and understanding to a spe-
behind AETL, which calls on teachers,
cialized electronic journal showing work
administrators, and policymakers to perpetu-
completed over a period of time.
ate interchange between elements of the pro-
Practical context — The everyday environ- gram, including content, professional
ment in which an event takes place. development, curricula, instruction, student
assessment, and the learning environment, in
Practices — The established applications of
all areas of learning.
knowledge.
Project — A teaching or assessment method
Pre-service — 1. A teacher candidate.
used to enable students to apply their knowl-
2. Undergraduate level education for those
edge and abilities. These may take many

who intend to teach.
forms and are limited by time, resources, and
Principle — A basic truth, law, or assump- imagination.
tion that is widely accepted and followed as a
Prototyping — The act of creating a proto-
general rule or standard.
type, such as an original type, form, or
Problem solving — The process of under- instance, that serves as a working model on
standing a problem, devising a plan, carrying which later stages are based or judged.
out the plan, and evaluating the plan in
Provincial — Of or belonging to a province,
order to solve a problem or meet a need or
as in the ten main administrative divisions of
want.
Canada.
Process — 1. Human activities used to cre-
Psychomotor — 1. Physical behavior that
ate, invent, design, transform, produce, con-
has a basis in mental processes. 2. A teaching
trol, maintain, and use products or systems.
method that involves both mental processes
2. A systematic sequence of actions that
and physical movement.
combines resources to produce an output.
Qualified teacher — An individual possess-
Product — A tangible artifact produced by
ing the necessary knowledge and skills to
means of either human or mechanical work,
effectively teach specified subject matter to
or by biological or chemical processes.
students in specified grade levels.
Professional — Of or relating to practicing
Questioning — A technique of informal
one’s occupation with skill, knowledge, dedi-
assessment and instruction, wherein the
cation, and with a conscious accountability
teacher guides the direction, understanding,
for one’s actions.
and application of the information being
Professional development — A continu- taught through the use of questions and also
ous process of lifelong learning and growth attempts to identify student misconceptions
that begins early in life, continues through and uses that information to adjust
the undergraduate, pre-service experience, instruction.
and extends through the in-service years.
Reliability — Capable of being relied on;
Professional development providers — dependable; may be repeated with consistent
Those who organize and/or deliver pre- results.
Regional — The administrative boundaries Society — A community, nation, or broad
of a legally administered public agency, grouping of people having common tradi-
which may be combined with all other tions, institutions, and collective activities
regions. and interests.
Research — Systematic, scientific, docu- Space — 1. The continuous expanse beyond
mented study. the earth’s atmosphere, as in space explo-
ration. 2. The area allotted for a specific pur-
Resource — A thing needed to get a job pose, as in classroom space.
done. In a technological system, the basic
technological resources are: energy, capital, Stakeholder — An individual or entity who
information, machines and tools, materials, has an interest in the success of a specific
people, and time. venture or program. Stakeholders may
include teachers, administrators, school lead-
Requirements — The parameters placed on ers, professional development providers,
the development of a product or system. The business and industry leaders, engineers, sci-
requirements include the safety needs, the entists, technologists, and others.
physical laws that will limit the development
of an idea, the available resources, the cul- Standard — A written statement or state-
tural norms, and the use of criteria and ments about what is valued that can be used
constraints. for making a judgment of quality.
Rote memorization/response — A State — A geographically bound level of
response that is generated by memory alone, government that, combined with all other
without understanding or thought. states, comprise the totality of the nation, as
in the U.S. In terms of education, state
Rubric — An assessment or evaluative authorities, administrators, and policymakers
device based on the identified criteria taken refer to those that administer publicly main-
from the content standards. Points or words tained schools.
are assigned to each phrase or level of accom-
Strategic planning — A disciplined effort
plishment. This method gives feedback to
to produce fundamental decisions and
the students about their work in key cate-
actions that shape and guide what an organi-
gories, and it can be used to communicate
zation is, what it does, and why it does it,
student performance to parents and
with a focus on the future.
administrators.
Stem statements — Introductory phrases
School district — The administrative in AETL that appear before guidelines to
boundaries of a legally administered public connect individual guidelines to the standard
agency within a locality or state/province/ addressed. Stem statements should always be
region. used when quoting individual guidelines.
Science — Understanding the natural Student assessment — A systematic,
world. multi-step process of collecting evidence on
Self assessment/Self reflection — An student learning, understanding, and abili-
assessment method that encourages individu- ties and using that information to inform
als to evaluate themselves, for example, in instruction and provide feedback to the
terms of their learning or teaching. learner, thereby enhancing student learning.
Short-range planning — Planning for the Student interview — An assessment

immediate future and for a relatively short method that includes a planned sequence of
period of time; for example, the next day, questions, similar to a job interview.
week, or the rest of the grading period. Students are not given information, as the
objective is to collect data on student knowl-
Simulation — A method of instruction that edge and abilities at a certain point in time.
attempts to re-create real-life experiences. In contrast, a student conference suggests a
discussion, with both student and teacher Technological literacy — The ability to
idea-sharing taking place. use, manage, assess, and understand
technology.
Student presentation/demonstration —
An assessment method that involves student Technology — The innovation, change, or
explanation and communication of their modification of the natural environment to
understanding of key ideas, concepts, and satisfy perceived human needs and wants.
principles and abilities of processes, tech-
Technology education — A school subject
niques, and skills.
specifically designed to help students develop
Study of technology — Any formal or technological literacy.
informal education about human innova- Technology program — Everything that
tion, change, or modification of the natural affects student attainment of technological
environment. literacy, including content, professional
Summative assessment — Cumulative development, curricula, instruction, student
assessment that usually occurs at the end of a assessment, and the learning environment,
unit, topic, project, or problem. It identifies implemented across grade levels as a core
what students have learned and judges stu- subject of inherent value.
dent performance against previously identi- Test (e.g., multiple choice, true/false,
fied standards. Summative assessment is essay, etc.) — 1. A method for collecting
most often thought of as final exams, but it data. 2. A procedure for critical evaluation.
may also be a portfolio of student work.
Trade-off — An exchange of one thing in
Systems — Groups of interrelated compo- return for another; especially relinquishment
nents designed to collectively achieve a of one benefit or advantage for another
desired goal or goals. regarded as more desirable.
Systems-oriented — Looking at a problem Unit — An organized series of learning
in its entirety; looking at the whole, as dis- activities, lectures, projects, and other teach-
tinct from each of its parts or components, ing strategies that focuses on a specific topic
taking into account all of the variables and related to the curriculum as a whole.
relating social and technological
characteristics. Validity — Having or containing premises
from which the conclusion may logically be
Tactile — Stimulation through the sense of derived, correctly inferred, or deduced.
touch.
Vignette — An illustration or literary
Teacher candidate — An individual “snapshot” that, in AETL, provides detailed
preparing to teach. examples of how standards can be put into
Teaching — The conscious effort to bring practice.
about learning in a manner that is clearly Vision — A contemplative image of future
understood by the learner and likely to be promise and possibility articulated with the
successful. intention to inspire others.
Technological competency — What some Workstation — A student work area,
people need to be prepared to be successful including all the components that occupy
in a technical career. the space, such as furniture and equipment.

A P P E N D I X
H Index
Index
Note: Page numbers followed by f denote reference to the figure on the identified page number. Page numbers fol-
lowed by t denote reference to the table on the page.
A validity of, 23 and student assessment, 24
AAAS. See American Association for variety of, 31 of technology programs, 72
the Advancement of Science Authentic assessment, 32 Curricular guides, 78, 79
Accountability
for professional development, B D
59–61 Benchmarks for Science Literacy Data, from assessment, reporting of,
in program standards, 93, 94, 96t (AAAS), 10, 13, 73, 75 23
in student assessment, 36–37 Business, roles of, 101–102 Data collection
Accreditation and program standards, 93, 96t
guidelines for, professional devel- C in student assessment, 23, 36–37
opment and, 63–64 Caregivers, roles of, 101–102 Decision making, in student assess-
guidelines for, programs and, 94, Classroom. See Learning environment ment, 31–32
96t Cognitive learning Design
and teacher employment, 79 in professional development stan- content standards for, 120
Adaptability dards, 46 of learning environment, 58, 87,
of learning environment, 58, 87, in program standards, 74 88
88–89 in student assessment standards, in professional development,
of technology programs, 74, 75 21 43–44
Administrator(s) Collaboration Designed world
definition of, 70 among educators, 49, 60–61, content standards for, 120
and professional development, 79 99–100 teacher abilities in, 44
program standards for (See vignette of, 65–67 Designing Professional Development
Program standards) with community, 49 for Teachers of Science and
roles of, 100 Commonality, of students Mathematics (Loucks-Horsley
Advancing Excellence in Technological accommodation of assessment for, et al.), 39, 62
Literacy (AETL) (ITEA) 27 Disciplines
correlations chart for, 126–131 accommodation of programs for, curricula and programs across, 49,
history of, 108–110 83 73, 75
and licensure, 64 and learning environment, 57–58 student assessment across, 21
overview of, 1–8 and teaching strategies, 46 Diversity, of students
purpose of, 1, 2 Community accommodation of assessment for,
reviewers of, 114–118 roles of, 101 27
TfAAP (See Technology for All teacher collaboration with, 49 accommodation of programs for,
Americans Project) vignette of, 65–67 83
vision of, 8, 98, 100, 105 Content, definition of, 14 and learning environment, 46,
AETL. See Advancing Excellence in Content standards, 120 57–58
Technological Literacy (See Standards for Technological
Affective learning Literacy) E
in professional development stan- Correlations, 7, 126–131 Educational technology, 53, 78, 79,
dards, 46 Council for Technology Teacher 88, 92
in program standards, 74 Education (CTTE), 98, 109 definition of, 11
in student assessment standards, 21 Critical thinking, in student assess- Educator(s)
American Association for the ment, 31–32 definition of, 79
Advancement of Science Cross-curricular technology pro- Empathy, in student assessment, 21
(AAAS), 10, 102 gram. See also Program(s); Employment, of teachers, 79
Assessment, student. See Student Program standards Engineering, and technology, 13
assessment; Student assessment definition of, 14, 70 Ethical behavior, of teachers, 60, 79
standards CTTE. See Council for Technology Evaluation
Assessment data Teacher Education and professional development,
to inform instruction (See Curricula 62–63
Formative assessment) definition of, 15 and programs, 81–84
reporting of, 23 design of, 78
Assessment tools and methods vignette of, 50–51 F
audience for, 23 implementation of, 78 Formalized assessment, 27
design of, 17, 23, 24–26 and instructional strategies, 53 Formative assessment, 3, 20, 22–23,
purpose of, 18, 22–23 interdisciplinary, 49 25–26, 53
reliability of, 23 professional development stan- vignette of, 28–29
sample approaches for, 19, 19t dards and, 47–49
APPENDIX H/Index 143

Funding Junior Engineering Technical National Educational Technology
for professional development, 64 Society (JETS), 61, 78, 80, 93, Standards for Students (ISTE),
for technology programs, 94 94, 98 73, 75
National Research Council (NRC),
G K 10, 12, 18, 19, 24
Geography for Life: National Knowing What Students Know: The National Science Education Standards
Geography Standards (GESP), Science and Design of (NRC), 10, 13, 73, 75
73, 75 Educational Assessment (NRC), National Science Foundation (NSF),
Grade levels 18, 19, 24, 36 1, 9, 108
curricula and programs across, 49, National standards, 73, 75
73–74, 75 L National Standards for History
student assessment across, 21 Laboratory-classroom. See Learning (NCHS), 73, 75
Guidelines environment Notations, definition of, 7
architecture of, 7 Leadership NRC. See National Research
definition of, 7 of administrators, 95 Council
narrative of, 7 of students, 61, 78, 80 NSF. See National Science Foundation
of teachers, 61
H Learners, students as, 45–46, 78, 79 P
Higher education, teacher educator (See also Student learning) Parent(s), roles of, 101
roles in, 99–100 Learning environment Performance-based assessment, 21, 31
Holistic approach, to student assess- adaptability of, 58, 87, 88–89 Policymakers, roles of, 100
ment, 30 definition of, 15 Portfolios, in student assessment,
design of, 56–58, 87, 88 22, 25, 83
I number of students in, 88, 89 vignette of, 33–35
Implementation, of technology pro- physical space of, 89 Pre-service professional develop-

gram, 77–80 in professional development stan- ment. See Professional develop-
Implementing Technology Education dards, 56–58 ment; Professional
Yearbook (ACIATE), 86 in program standards, 86–89 development standards
In-service professional development. resources in, 57, 86, 87, 88–89 Principles and Standards for School
See Professional development; safety of, 58, 87, 88–89 Mathematics (NCTM), 73, 75
Professional development student commonality and diver- Problem solving
standards sity and, 57–58 in professional development,
Industry, roles of, 101–102 and student learning, 57, 58, 86 43–44
Instruction, 58, 78, 79 and teacher instruction, 58, 86 in student assessment, 31
definition of, 15 vignette of, 90–91 Professional development
evaluation of, 82–83, 84 Learning, of students. See Student accountability in, 59–61
Instructional strategies, 52–53, 78 learning and accreditation guidelines,
Instructional technology, 53, 78, 79, Licensure 63–64
88 professional development and, 64 administrators and, 79
definition of, 11 and teacher employment, 79 continuous nature of, 40–41,
Intended purpose, of student assess- 59–61
ment, 22–23 M definition of, 4, 14, 40
Interdisciplinary Management, of programs, 92–96 design in, 43–44
curricula and programs, 49, Mathematics, and technology, 13 evaluation of, 62, 63
54–55, 73, 75 Mentoring, 64 funding for, 64
student assessment, 21 Modeling, of teaching practices, 63 and licensure, 64
International Technology Education vignette of, 50–51 mentoring and, 64
Association (ITEA), 1, 7, 9, Museums, roles of, 102 modeling of teaching practices in,
12, 90, 98, 102, 108, 109 63
Board of Directors, 111 N problem solving in, 43–44
Council of Supervisors (ITEA-CS), Narrative and program permeability, 41
98 of guidelines, 7 and student assessment, 36–37
staff, 111 of standards, 7 teacher responsibility for, 59–61
ITEA. See International Technology NAE. See National Academy of Professional development standards,
Education Association Engineering 4–5, 4t, 39–67, 104, 122–123
ITEA/CTTE/NCATE Curriculum NASA. See National Aeronautics applications of, 40
Standards, 109 and Space Administration audiences for, 41
National Academy of Engineering correlations of, 128–129
J (NAE), 10, 12, 13, 102 Standard PD-1 (consistency with
JETS. See Junior Engineering National Aeronautics and Space STL), 42–44, 122
Technical Society Administration (NASA), 1, correlations of, 42, 128
108 guidelines for meeting, 43–44
144 APPENDIX H/Index

Standard PD-2 (students as learn- Standard P-2 (implementation), professional development (See
ers), 45–46, 122 77–80, 124, 125 Professional development
correlations of, 45, 128 correlations of, 77, 130 standards)
guidelines for meeting, 46 guidelines for administrators, program (See Program standards)
Standard PD-3 (curricula and 79–80 redundancy of, 8
programs), 47–49, 122 guidelines for teachers, 78 sample, 6, 6f
correlations of, 47, 128 Standard P-3 (evaluation), 81–84, student assessment (See Student
guidelines for meeting, 49 124, 125 assessment standards)
Standard PD-4 (instructional correlations of, 81, 130–131 Standards for Technological Literacy
strategies), 52–53, 122 guidelines for administrators, (STL) (ITEA), 1, 2
correlations of, 52, 128 84 correlations chart for, 126–131
guidelines for meeting, 53 guidelines for teachers, 82–83 history of, 108–110
Standard PD-5 (learning environ- Standard P-4 (learning environ- and licensure, 64
ments), 56–58, 123 ments), 86–89, 124, 125 and professional development
correlations of, 56, 129 correlations of, 86, 131 standards, 39, 42–44, 47–48
guidelines for meeting, 57–58 guidelines for administrators, and program standards, 69,
Standard PD-6 (continued profes- 88–89 72–76, 88, 93
sional growth), 59–61, 123 guidelines for teachers, 87–88 and student assessment standards,
correlations of, 59, 129 Standard P-5 (management), 20–21
guidelines for meeting, 60–61 92–96, 124, 125 vision of, 2, 8, 98, 100, 105
Standard PD-7 (pre-service correlations of, 92, 131 Standards for the English Language
and in-service), 62–64, 123 guidelines for administrators, Arts (NCTE), 73, 75
correlations of, 62, 129 93–95 Stem statements, 7
guidelines for meeting, 63–64 guidelines for teachers, 93 STL. See Standards for Technological
Psychomotor learning
Professional organizations, 59, 61, Literacy
95 in professional development stan- Student(s)
roles of, 102 dards, 46 commonality and diversity of
Program(s), in program standards, 74 accommodation of programs
accountability in, 93, 94 in student assessment standards, 21
for, 83
and accreditation guidelines, 94 accommodation of assessment
adaptability of, 74, 75 R for, 27
components of, 14f Recruitment, of teachers, 80 and learning environment,
cross-curricular, definition of Reliability, of assessment tools and 57–58
70–71 methods, 23 and teaching strategies, 46
curricula of, 72 Reporting, of assessment data, 23 leadership of, 61, 78, 80
definition of, 5, 13–14, 70 Research as learners, 45–46, 78, 79 (See
enhancement of 36, 37 and professional development,
also Student learning)
evaluation of, 81–84 46, 49
number of, in learning environ-
funding for, 94 and programs, 78, 79
ment, 88, 89
implementation of, 77–80 and student assessment, 24–29
participation in assessment
integration of, 94–95 Researchers, roles of, 102–103
process, 27, 28–29
interdisciplinary, 49 Resource developers, roles of, 100
roles of, 100–101
management of, 92–96 Resources
self assessment by, 21
permeability of, 71 in learning environment, 57, 86,
Student assessment
professional development stan- 87–89
in technology programs, 94, 95 accountability in, 36–37
dards and, 47–49
Rubrics across disciplines, 21
promotion of, 93, 94
for student assessment, 26, 83 across grade levels, 21
resources in, 94, 95
vignette of, 33–35 affective domain in, 21
revision of, 83, 84, 85
scope of, 70–71 cognitive learning in, 21
and student assessment standards, S critical thinking in, 31–32
43–44 Safety, of learning environment, 58, data collection in, 36–37
technology, definition of, 70–71 87, 88–89 decision making in, 31–32
Program standards, 5, 5t, 69–96, Science, and technology, 13 definition of, 3, 15, 18
104–105 Self assessment empathy in, 21
applications of, 69 by students, 21 fairness and equity of, 23
audiences for, 71 by teachers, 60 formalized, 27
correlations of, 130–131 Society, and technology formative, 3, 20, 22–23, 25–26,
Standard P-1 (consistency with content standards for, 120 28–29, 53
STL), 72–75, 124, 125 teacher understanding of, 43 goals and purposes of, 3, 18–19
correlations of, 72, 130 Standard(s) holistic approach to, 30
guidelines for administrators, architecture of, 7 as instructional strategy, 53
74–75 definition of, 7 intended purpose of, 22–23
guidelines for teachers, 73–74 narrative of, 7 interpretation of, 19
APPENDIX H/Index 145

modifications to, 32 T content standards for, 120
performance-based, 21, 31 Teacher(s) teacher understanding of, 43
practical contexts of, 30–35 collaboration among, 49, 60–61, public opinions of, 9, 12
problem solving in, 31 99 and society
professional development and, collaboration with community, content standards for, 120
36–37 49 teacher understanding of, 43
program enhancement and, 36–37 employment of, 79 student use of, research on, 46
and program evaluation, 83 ethical behavior of, 60 study of, 10–11, 12, 14
and program permeability, 19 leadership of, 61 implementation of, 98–105
psychomotor learning in, 21 professional development of (See promotion of, 93, 94
research and, 24–29 Professional development; Technology education, 11
sample approaches for, 19, 19t Professional development Technology Education Collegiate
student commonality and diver- standards) Association (TECA), 63, 98,
sity and, 27 program standards for (See 101
student participation in, 27, 28–29 Program standards) Technology for All Americans
summative, 3, 22–23, 26–27, recruitment of, 80 Project (TfAAP)
33–35, 53 roles of, 99 Advisory Group, 108, 112
tools and methods (See Assessment self assessment by, 60 AETL (See Advancing Excellence
tools and methods) Teacher educators in Technological Literacy)
variety of, 31 collaboration among, 100 history of, 108–110
Student assessment standards, 3–4, roles of, 99–100 staff, 110
3t, 17–37, 103–104, 121 Teaching practices, modeling of, 63 Standards Specialists, 112–113
applications of, 17 vignette of, 50–51 Standards Writing Team, 108,
audiences for, 19 Teamwork. See Collaboration 112
correlations of, 127 TECA. See Technology Education STL (See Standards for
Standard A-1 (consistency with Collegiate Association Technological Literacy)
STL), 20–21, 121 Technically Speaking: Why All Technology programs. See
correlations of, 20, 127 Americans Need to Know More Program(s)
guidelines for meeting, 21 About Technology (NAE & Technology Student Association
Standard A-2 (intended purpose), NRC), 10, 11, 24 (TSA), 61, 78, 80, 93, 94,
22–23, 121 Technological competency, 10 98, 101
correlations of, 22, 127 Technological literacy
Technology student organizations,
guidelines for meeting, 23 assessment of (See Student assess-
61 (See also Student
Standard A-3 (research-based ment; Student assessment
organizations)
assessment principles), standards)
TfAAP. See Technology for All
24–27, 121 characteristics of, 11–12
Americans Project
correlations of, 24, 127 content standards for, 120 (See
TSA. See Technology Student
guidelines for meeting, 25–27 also Standards for
Association
Standard A-4 (practical contexts), Technological Literacy)
30–32, 121 definition of, 2, 9–10
correlations of, 30, 127 importance of, 12 V
guidelines for meeting, 31–32 need for, 1–2 Validity, of assessment tools and
Standard A-5 (data collection), programs for, (See Program(s); methods, 23
36–37, 121 Program standards) Vignette(s)
correlations of, 36, 127 Technological world Data-based decision making, 85
guidelines for meeting, 37 content standards for, 120 definition of, 8
Student learning teacher abilities in, 44 Facilitating collaboration, 65–67
definition of, 15 Technology Formative assessment: Using stu-
enhancement of, through assess- ability to assess, 9, 20 dent fedback, 28–29
ment, 27 ability to manage, 9, 20 K–12 curriculum integration
and research, 25, 46, 78, 79 ability to understand, 10, 20 workshop, 54–55
Student organizations, 61, 78, 80, ability to use, 9, 20 Modeling professional practice,
93, 94 98 as core discipline, 72, 74 50–51
roles of, 100–101 definition of, 2, 10 sample, 6, 6f
Summative assessment, 3, 22–23, to enhance lives, 1 The study of technology: A cross-
26–27, 33–35, 53 Gallup poll on, 9, 12 curricular perspective,
Systems, 11–12 historical influences of, 28–29 90–91
nature of
146 APPENDIX H/Index

Aetl 1 PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Aetl 1 PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Advancing Excellence in

Companion to—Standards for Technological Literacy:

Copies of this document are being distributed by the

1 Overview of Advancing Excellence in Technological Literacy ................1

3 Student Assessment Standards ...................................................17

4 Professional Development Standards ...........................................39

5 Program Standards ...................................................................69

6 Achieving the Vision by Working Together ...................................97

A History of Technology for All Americans Project ..........................108

C Listing of STL Content Standards ..............................................120

D Listing of AETL Standards with Guidelines ..................................121

E Correlation Chart ...................................................................126

F References and Resources ........................................................132

William E. Dugger, Jr., DTE Michael D. Wright, DTE

Standards for Technological Literacy

literacy. STL provides the content basis upon which

Features of Advancing Excellence in

comprehensively. (See Table 1 for the

2 CHAPTER ONE/Overview of AETL

Chapter 3: Student Assessment Standards

CHAPTER ONE/Overview of AETL 3

Chapter 4: Professional Development Standards

Chapter 5: Program Standards

CHAPTER ONE/Overview of AETL 5

Figure 1. Format of a Sample Standard with Guidelines and a Sample Vignette

30 CHAPTER THREE/Student Assessment Standards

weeks might examine a local technologi-

Audience for Assessment Data

Vignettes give ideas or examples of how assessment uses

STL Standards Assessed

standards can be implemented. student feedback. The

instruction, thereby Grade Level Appropriateness

28 CHAPTER THREE/Student Assessment Standards

6 CHAPTER ONE/Overview of AETL

CHAPTER ONE/Overview of AETL 7

Redundancy of the Standards

Designing the Future

8 CHAPTER ONE/Overview of AETL

What is Technological Literacy?

1. The ability to use technology involves the

10 CHAPTER TWO/Principles and Related Definitions

Technology education is not the same as educational technology. Sometimes referred to

Characteristics of a Technologically Literate Person

CHAPTER TWO/Principles and Related Definitions 11

Why is Technological Literacy Important?

12 CHAPTER TWO/Principles and Related Definitions

CHAPTER TWO/Principles and Related Definitions 13

CHAPTER TWO/Principles and Related Definitions 15

1. Assessment to assist learning

18 CHAPTER THREE/Student Assessment Standards

Audiences for “Student Assessment Standards”

Other targeted audiences:

CHAPTER THREE/Student Assessment Standards 19

Standard A-1: Assessment of student learning

20 CHAPTER THREE/Student Assessment Standards

Guidelines for meeting Standard A-1 require that

CHAPTER THREE/Student Assessment Standards 21

Standard A-2: Assessment of student learning will

22 CHAPTER THREE/Student Assessment Standards

Guidelines for meeting Standard A-2 require that

B. Identify and consider the D. Establish valid and reliable mea-

Standard A-3: Assessment of student learning will

experience and be consistently structured to assess tasks from a well-planned curricu-